alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            4806
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       5623
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             178
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               177
<LOANS>                                          65480
<ALLOWANCE>                                        717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   78888
<DEPOSITS>                                       64462
<SHORT-TERM>                                      2500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                782
<LONG-TERM>                                       3000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                        8140
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   78888
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   4127
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  274
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    53
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4454
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2051
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2277
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2177
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      135
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    980
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         980
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       599
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.82
<LOANS-NON>                                        195
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   649
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       78
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  717
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            717


</TABLE>
From: Michele Manber

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: thank you for supporting birth control access

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:07:38 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

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

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

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

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

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

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

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

Sincerely,

Michele Manber

5006 Wallingford Ave N

Seattle, Wa 98103
No. 586, Misc.

#### Akers *v.*Boles, Warden.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.02



          Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
            pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Spectrum Organic
Products, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert B. Fowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2)   the information contained in the Report presents fairly, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                               /s/ Robert B. Fowles
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Robert B. Fowles
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               November 7, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Kathy Bentley

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Preventative Health Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:36:39 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.

Kathy
From: brian sahrmann

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Coverage

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 11:54:57 AM

To Whom it May Concern, 

It has come to my attention via news reports that the U.S. Health and Human

Services is considering implementing mandated participation of contraception

coverage even against the normal religious conscience rights in the health care

industry. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the H.H.S. that fertility is not a

disease and mandating contraceptive coverage is sexist because only women are

required to participate in this activity. The H.S.S. will be influencing women to

unnecessarily take drugs which at minimum are equivalent to steroids and at

maximum abortifacients causing women to be exposed to unwanted long term heath

problems or ending there life before birth. Therefore, this promotion of ideology

and/or big medical cronyism is first and foremost not a health care and is unjust and

immoral.

In conclusion, please remove any mandated practice of contraception as it violates

both my civil and religious rights, because the current definition of religious employer

does not provide true conscience protection for those committed to preserving life.

Health care plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions

of providers or employees in order to participate in the health care system. Requiring

such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access to health care and

religious freedom of conscience.

Sincerely, 

Brian Sahrmann
From: Johncdang@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:52 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 Dang

Milwaukee, WI 53211
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 (3.22 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
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18455]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 515


Cuban Assets Control Regulations

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 500 to End, 
revised as of July 1, 2022, in section 515.570, in paragraph (d), 
remove ``Sec.  515.565(d)'' in both places where it appears and add in 
its place ``Sec.  515.565(f)''.

[FR Doc. 2023-18455 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
Hillsborough,)

May 7,1912.

#### Scully, *Adm’r, v.*Manchester Street Railway.

Case, for negligence of the defendants resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s intestate. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the September term, 1911, of the superior court by *Chamberlin,*J.

One point in issue was the speed of the car which collided with the intestate. A witness for the plaintiff having testified that about the time of the accident he saw another car pass by at the rate of eighteen or twenty miles an hour, he was asked by the court whether the speed of the car was the subject of comment by himself or others. Subject to the defendants’ exception, the witness was allowed to answer that it was.

*Taggart, Burroughs & Wyman,*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren,*for the defendants.

Walker, J.

The question was clearly competent for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness. If he had answered the question in the negative, it would have had some tendency, under the circumstances, to show that he was exaggerating the speed of the car, while the affirmative answer which he gave tended to show he was telling the truth. As the testimony was at least competent for this purpose, its admission was not error, even if it was incompetent for other purposes. *Haskell*v. *Railway,*73 N. H. 587; *Robinson*v. *Stahl,*74 N. H. 310; *Conn. River Power Co.*v. *Dickinson,*75 N. H. 353, 358.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Labor Relations Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

                        Each Wednesday of every month through Fiscal Year 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Changes in date and time will be posted at                         *www.nlrb.gov.*

# PLACE: 

                        Meetings will be held via videoconferencing technology. If Board meetings resume in person, the Board will meet in the Board Agenda Room, No. 5065, 1015 Half St. SE, Washington, DC. Any in-person meetings will be noted at                         *www.nlrb.gov.*

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition . . . of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.” See also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Roxanne L. Rothschild, Executive Secretary, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1940.

Dated: September 5, 2023.

Roxanne L. Rothschild,

Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-19440 Filed 9-5-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
On November 4, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Value
Line, Inc. (VLI), Value Line Securities, Inc. (currently, EULAV Securities,
Inc. (ESI or the Distributor)), Jean B. Buttner, former Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of VLI and David Henigson,
a former Director and Officer of VLI, settled a matter related
to brokerage commissions charged by ESI to certain
Value Line mutual funds (Funds), including the Fund
from 1986 through November of 2004. The
matter also involved alleged misleading disclosures provided by VLI to the
Boards of Directors/Trustees and shareholders of the Funds regarding such
brokerage commissions. VLI agreed to pay disgorgement in the amount of
$24,168,979 (representing disgorgement of commissions received), prejudgment
interest of $9,536,786, and a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000,000.
Also as part of the settlement, Mrs. Buttner and Mr. Henigson each agreed
to pay a civil penalty, are barred from association with any broker, dealer
or investment adviser, and are prohibited from serving as an employee,
officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser or depositor
 of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company or
affiliated person of such investment adviser, depositor, or principal
underwriter, subject to a limited exception (limited in scope and for a
one-year period) for Mrs. Buttner. Pursuant to Section 308(a) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a fund will be created for VLIs disgorgement,
interest and penalty (Fair Fund). VLI will bear all costs associated with any
Fair Fund distribution, including retaining a third-party consultant approved
by the SEC staff to administer any Fair Fund distribution.  VLI informed the
Funds Board that it has paid the settlement, continues to have adequate
liquid assets, and that the resolution of this matter will not have a
materially adverse effect on the ability of EULAV Asset Management LLC
(EULAV or the Adviser), the Funds investment adviser, or ESI, the
Funds distributor, to perform their respective contracts with the Funds.
**Filed        Pursuant To Rule 433,        Registration No. 333-124310**

**$1,000,000,000**

**CATERPILLAR        FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

| **For                  the Period: 11/26/2007 to 12/3/2007** |                               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| **Coupon**                                                   | **Interest**                       | **Maturity** | **Callable** | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price1** | **Yield2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
| 4.200%                                                       | Quarterly(††)          | 12/15/09 | NO | YES§ | 100.00 | 4.222% | A2 | A | 14912HGY0 |
| 5.000%                                                       | Semi-Annual(†††) | 12/15/14 | 12/15/09*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 4.999% | A2 | A | 14912HGZ7 |
| 5.650%                                                       | Semi-Annual(†††) | 12/15/22 | 12/15/10*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.649% | A2 | A | 14912HHA1 |
| 5.750%                                                       | Semi-Annual(†††) | 12/15/27 | 12/15/11*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.749% | A2 | A | 14912HHB9 |

*All        offerings are subject to prior        sale.*
# 99028. DoD Needs More Base Cuts, White House Official Says

```

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- DoD continues to need two more rounds of base 
closures, said Robert Bell, special assistant to the president 
for national security affairs.

Bell said Congress needs to approve a system to conduct two more 
rounds of base closures beginning in fiscal 2001. "We need new 
authority [to conduct closures] -- in fact, our budget 
projections assume that we'll win approval of that," Bell said 
at a Jan. 5 White House press conference. He said lawmakers will 
be hard-pressed to ignore a source of up to $3 billion a year in 
a time of constrained budgets. 

"We hope that the Congress will accept the proposal this year 
and give us the [base closure] authority," Bell said. "One of 
the reasons I think we have a better chance this year is that 
we're working under the constraints of a balanced budget 
agreement. And those on the Hill that would say, let's provide 
more for defense, more even than the president discussed, � have 
to come up with the dollars in the context of the total federal 
budget."

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Army Gen. Henry Shelton, 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have repeatedly called 
for two new rounds of base closures. They say reductions in 
infrastructure have not kept pace with reductions in personnel 
or weaponry. 

In April 1998, Cohen said in a news conference that DoD has 23 
percent more capacity than the force size needs. "In the Navy, 
we have 46 percent fewer ships today than we had in 1989," he 
said. "Yet berthing, which includes pier space and equipment, 
dropped only 18 percent."

In the Air Force, there are 53 percent fewer planes than in 
1989, yet apron space dropped only 35 percent, he said.

Bell did not say how many more bases need to close. He 
estimated, however, infrastructure cuts overall are lagging 
about 10 percent behind reductions in defense spending and 
personnel.

Base closures and realignments are also at the center of the 
Defense Reform Initiative. They're key, said William Houley, 
Cohen's reform initiative special assistant, in an October 1998 
interview. 

"[The] savings we get from [base realignments and closures] 
would dwarf what we generate from all other [defense reform 
initiative] programs," Houley said. "Congress can set whatever 
rules they want, but we have to reduce infrastructure."

##end##
```
Appendix E

Emissions and Air 

Quality Modeling 

for SEMAPFinal Report

1 .pdf File Included in Electronic Copy Only