alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Gracehlinn@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: (no subject)

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:22:55 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 so important for all women. I am of sound mind 88.8 years of

age and I want all women to have their respected and protected.

Thank You

gdnhl
From: Ngold2000

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventive health care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:51:22 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.

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.

Nancy Gold
No. 278, Misc.

#### Norman *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
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 (1.62 MB)
 
 1CTCS AFCENT F-16 Fighting Falcon B-52 Stratofortress Bomber Task Force
 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: Jen Bayer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM recommendations re: contraceptive services

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:16:12 PM

Dear HHS Representative:

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.

-Jen from Danville, PA
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 (0.57 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
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, *v.*LEWIS R. MARTIN, Appellant.

*■Forgery*— *liability of a pa/rty Turning forged bonds (pot fully executed) in his possession, with intent to return them to a person from whom they were received by him.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of New York, convicting the defendant of forgery in the first degree.

The indictment charged the defendant with having in his possession a forged coupon of what purported to be a bond issued by the Morris and Essex Railroad Company, with intent to utter and dispose of the same. The defendant claimed that he was keeping the bonds for one Spencer, under an agreement to return the same to him when requested.

Upon the trial the counsel for the prisoner requested the court to charge that: “ If Martin (the defendant) was keeping the bonds for Spencer with a knowledge of their character, and intending to return them to Spencer when the latter desired, the defendant would not be guilty of the offense charged in the indictment.” The court declined so to charge.

The court at General Term said: “ The appellant asserted that the bonds which were alleged'to have been forged were placed in his care by Spencer, to be returned to him upon his request, and *463the court was asked to charge that if he was keeping the bonds for Spencer with a knowledge of tiieir character, and intending to return, them to Spencer when the latter desired, the defendant would not be guilty of the offense charged in the indictment.

“It must be borne in mind that the bonds were incomplete, not having been signed, and their invalidity was not affected by the ■circumstance that the coupons attached to them were signed. It must also be kept in view that the coupons, if not detached from the bonds, would be invalid, because of the imperfect character of the bonds themselves, to which they were attached and to which they related. If the bonds were issued in the condition in which they were found in the appellant’s apartment, they would be valueless for the reasons suggested, namely, that the bonds were not signed, and notice would be given by that circumstance that they were not legally issued. If the appellant was the custodian of them, us he alleged, even if he knew their character and intended to give them back to Spencer, from whom he received them when the latter desired that he should do so, he would not be guilty of any offense for merely holding them in his custody, *non constat,*but that they would not be signed.”

For these reasons the judgment pronounced should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

*Peter Mitchell,*for the appellant.

*Randolph B. Ma/rlme,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered.
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 (1.14 MB)
 
 pj CCT Italians Jordanians KASOTC Amman Special tactics combat control eagerlion17 USCENTCOM Pararescue Jordan
 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
NO. CAAP-22-0000160

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BEAR STERNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 LLC, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-HE7, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JAMES C. ACOB, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN AND MARY DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC151000671)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)Upon consideration of self-represented DefendantAppellant James C. Acob's ( Acob ) August 1, 2022 Motion for Appeal Reply Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction, for Good Cause ( Motion for Reconsideration ), which we construe as a motion for reconsideration of our June 9, 2022 Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction ( Dismissal Order ), the papers in support, and the record, it appears that Acob asks the court to reconsider its Dismissal Order and reinstate this appeal, as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 26(e).

HRAP Rule 40(a) provides that a motion for reconsideration "may be filed by a party only within 10 days after the filing of the . . . dispositional order, . . . unless Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000160 22-AUG-2022 07:55 AM Dkt. 18 ORDby special leave additional time is granted during such period by

a judge . . . of the appellate court involved." Acob did not file the Motion for Reconsideration or a request for an extension of time within ten days after entry of the Dismissal Order, as required by HRAP Rule 40(a), and the Motion for Reconsideration is untimely. Further, Acob fails to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended any point of law or fact when it entered its Dismissal Order. 1HRAP Rule 40(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 22, 2022. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

1 We also note that we dismissed the appeal as untimely, under HRAP Rule 4(a)(1), and HRAP Rule 26(b) provides that "no court or judge or justice is authorized to change the jurisdictional requirements contained in Rule 4 of these rules."
2
#### Horace Shoemaker, Respondent, v. Charles Lounsbury and another, Appellants

Judgment of the County Court of Tioga county affirmed,with costs. Opinion hy

Boardman, J.
No. 292.

#### International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America *v.*Overnite Transportation Co.,

*ante,*p. 862. Petition for rehearing denied.
From: Carolyn Watson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:02:21 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 Catholic hospitals 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.

Please support women't rights to preventive care. Carolyn Watson, 131 Starlight Lane, Harpers Ferry, WV 

25425. libladyuw@yahoo.com
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice:12178]


Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 To Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 506(a)(1) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (the ``Act'') (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1)) and 
Presidential Delegation of Authority dated January 6, 2023, I hereby 
determine that:
    <bullet> an unforeseen emergency exists which requires immediate 
military assistance to Ukraine; and
    <bullet> the emergency requirement cannot be met under the 
authority of the Arms Export Control Act or any other provision of law.
    I, therefore, pursuant to authority delegated to me by the 
President, direct the drawdown of up to $2.85 billion in defense 
articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military 
education and training, under the authority of section 506(a)(1) of the 
Act to provide assistance to Ukraine. The Department of State will 
coordinate implementation of this drawdown.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 6, 2023.
Antony Blinken,
Secretary of State.

    Note:  This document was received for publication by the Office 
of the Federal Register on September 6, 2023.

[FR Doc. 2023-19574 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
Page | of 1

AUG 3 1 20% ‘REG J20'39/-/0

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 31, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce1b27
(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-2010-0017-0049
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Denise Rodriguez
Address:
2442 NW Market St.
#185
Seattle, WA, 98107
Email: denise.e.rodriguez@gmail.com
Organization: self

General Comment

Iam so thrilled that HHS is prioritizing the health of all women by providing for no cost birth
control. As a former women's health care professional, I can tell you that cost is often the most
heavily weighed factor for women considering a birth control method. Not whether the method is
effective. Not whether it is the most appropriate method for her health care needs. Cost. I am so
happy that women will be able to take care of themselves more fully because they will be able to
choose the birth control method that is right for them regardless of cost. In addition to being the
right thing to do in a country that values women and the contributions that they make to society, it
is also the most cost effective choice for America.

As we move to an era where access to health and healthcare is not tied to ones employer, it is
appropriate that women be able to access this new benefit regardless of their employer. There
should not be exceptions for religious organizations in offering insurance plans with no cost For
too many women, their choice of work dictates their access to health services. That chapter needs
to come to a close so we can all share equally in the future.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/31/2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6674

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ATARAH MCQUINN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (3:02-cr-00095-REP)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 31, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Atarah McQuinn, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Atarah McQuinn appeals the district court’s order denying

McQuinn’s motion to modify her term of imprisonment pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See United States v. McQuinn, No. 3:02-cr00095-REP (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

NOTICE TO READERS

A special edition of the Official Journal of the European Union containing the texts of the Acts of the institutions and of the European Central Bank adopted before accession will be published in the Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene languages. The volumes of this edition will be issued gradually between 1 May and the end of 2004.

Pending publication, the electronic version of the texts is available on EUR-Lex.

The EUR-Lex site is at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/accession.html

----
#### Sabrina Kaveny, Respondent, v. The City of Troy, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.