alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Laura Glowacki

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 8:27:00 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,

Laura Glowacki

2445 W. Grenshaw

1 East

Chicago, IL 60612
#### In the Matter of DAVID CLARK to Vacate Assessment.

*Assessment*— application *to vacate it*— no *objection can be considered, unless it is stated in the petition.*

Upon an application to vacate an assessment for paving a street in tlie city of New York, the court cannot consider an objection taken thereto, unless it is-stated in the petition.

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term denying a petition to vacate an assessment for the paving of South Fifth avenue, in the city of New York.

*James A.*Deermg, for the appellant.

*A. L. Cole,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam :

The work in this case was done under the authority of chapter 872, Laws of 1872, which expressly authorized it.to be done by the commissioner of public works by day’s work, by contract, or in such manner as the said commissioner of public works might deem expedient. The only point argued by the appellant is that the provision of the act under which the work was done is unconstitutional, because it embraces one or more subjects not expressed in its title. This objection is not stated in the petition, and therefore is not available to the petitioner. (See *Rich's Case,*12 Abb., 118 ; *Miller's Case,*Id., 121; *Horne’s Case,*Id., 121; *In re. Eager,*16 N. Y., 109.)

In this last case, Mr. Justice Rapallo, writing the opinion of the court, says: “ The petitioners have taken the point that the assessment was not coniirmed by the common council, and that the act of 1861, which purports to dispense with such confirmation, is-unconstitutional by reason of not being properly entitled.' We cannot inquire into this objection for the reason that it is not stated in the petition, and consequently was not passed upon by the court below.”

Under that authority we are relieved from the necessity of considering the question of constitutionality; and as no other point is *199made, we are of opinion that the order of the court below should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Davis, P. J., Beady and DaNiels, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### Otto Meyer, Appellant, v. Isaac Kaufman and another, Respondents.

Order reversed and motion denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. '
#### John Clark v. The State.

No. 1893.

Decided April 11, 1900.

Recognizance on Appeal.

Where the penalty assessed in a misdemeanor conviction is both a fine and imprisonment, the recognizance is fatally defective which states the punishment as a fine, omitting the imprisonment. The statute requires that the punishment as. assessed" by the jury must be stated in the recognizance.

Appeal from the County Court of Denton. Tried below before Hon. J. D. Ferguson, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction of theft of ten gallons of molasses of the value of $4.

No statement necessary.

*Piner & Baker,*for appellant.

*Rob’t A. John,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of theft, and his punishment assessed at ten days confinement in the county jail and a fine of $25. Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance fails to state the punishment as required by the statute. The recognizance states the punishment to be a fine of $25, omitting the ten days imprisonment in the ocunty jail. The statute requires that the punishment assessed by the jury shall he stated in the recognizance, and, as this has not been done, that instrument is fatally defective, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

*Dismissed.*

Henderson, Judge, absent.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ANA AR A C ELY LIZAM A R IVAS, Pe t i tione r, v. LOR ETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-72713 Age n c y No. A099-725-664 ORDER *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d June 8, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, GOULD, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. The pa rtie s jointly

m ove d to re m and to the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) for a dm inistra

t ive c losure . The Joint M otion to Re m and is GR ANTED, a

nd pe titione r’ s re m o va l is sta y e d pe nding a

de c ision by the B IA. 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
From: marjhobart@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Ensuring Women"s Health

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:26:27 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.

I believe 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.
[No. 2513.]

#### Berry v. Ryan et al.

Damages to Property — Offer to Repair.

In an, action for damage to plaintiffs property by the tortious acts of defendants in blasting out a road bed for a railroad, evidence that defendants offered to repair the injuries to plaintiff’s buildings, which constituted the greater part of the injuries complained of, and that plaintiff declined the offer, was no defense to the action.

*Error to the County Court of Teller County.*

Mr. Scott Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James J. McFeely, for defendants in error.

Gunter, J.

This was an action for damages sustained to the personal and real property of plaintiff — plaintiff in error — through the tortious acts of the servants of defendants in error, in blasting out a road bed for a certain railroad. A trial to the jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants in error.

Original liability on the part of defendants in error was admitted. The only defense urged below was that defendants in error had offered to send workmen and materials, and repair the injuries to plaintiff’s buildings, which constituted in great part the injuries complained of. Plaintiff declined to accept this offer. This offer was manifestly not a defense to the cause of action admittedly existing in favor of plaintiff.

This question, insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, was saved to plaintiff by an exception to the judgment.

.The judgment will be reversed.

*Reversed.*

Thomson, P. J., not sitting.
No. 404, Misc.

#### Nelson *v.*California et al.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Reject any exemptions for “religious employers.”

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:19:40 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.

I cannot understand this country with the mentality of Neanderthals, subsidizing

viagra for the pleasure of old farts who cannot get it up or keep it up and all

this on our tax money, but when it comes to women's right to control their bodies with

the use of contraceptives so they can still service their husband's needs without the

fear of getting pregnant..( they don't get pregnant by the Holy Ghost for all I

know..they are being denyied this right..I object paying for viagra and I would be

willing to pay double to prevent pregnancies..

The cost of raising a child is enormous and in these uncertain economic times, it

would be an irresponsible act to even conceive one!

Either sterilize men or give women the right to control their own bodies..!

Comtessa de Metoncula!
From: Collard, Junilla

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious employer

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:48:12 PM

I oppose the proposed definition of “religious employer”.

Junilla Collard
From: Belinda Lehmkuhle

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Oppose the definition of religious employer proposed by HHS

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:27:44 AM

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.

Under the proposed definition a “religious exemption” is allowed only if the health care provider 

primarily serves or employees of its own faith. This means that not even the Missionaries of Charity 

(founded by Mother Teresa!) would qualify simply because they serve everyone in the belief that we 

are all God's children. 

Our country is risking throwing away freedom of religion by tolerating such terrible mandates. Please 

take action to oppose this so called "health care reform."

Sincerly,

Belinda G. Lehmkuhle
#### Jacob H. Conklin and another, as Trustees, etc., Respondents, v. Garrett Z. Snider, as Executor, etc, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted at Special Term, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Dykman,J.;

Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CATHERINE JOHNSON,

Petitioner

v.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 305 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
From: melissa moorer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:05:43 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. Yet they would still receive federal monies for services

they do not have to provide, services that would save the lives of American women.

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.

Women's lives are at stake!

Sincerely,

Melissa M.
From: Laurel Vetters

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control!

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:22:32 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I am so glad the Department of Health & Human Services decided to require health insurers to cover

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

This policy is so important to women's health, and it is sadly not often supported 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,

Laurel Vetters

4910 W. Frances Pl

Austin, TX 78731
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 110

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments

for Members of Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 2001

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay

adjustments for Members of Congress.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a)

6 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C.

7 31) is repealed.

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’;
2

•S 110 IS

1 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B),

2 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively;

3 and

4 (3) by striking ‘‘as adjusted by paragraph (2)

5 of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘adjusted as pro6 vided by law’’.

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

8 on February 1, 2003.

Æ
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

# AFCENT hosts innovation summit

By Staff Sgt. Hope GeigerU.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs

                AL UDEID AIR BASE, QATAR  –              

                U.S. Air Force Maj. Kyle Boothe, U.S. Air Forces Central Command chief innovation officer, holds a 3D printed item during the AFCENT Innovation Summit in the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing’s Desert Spark Lab at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, March 3, 2020. The AFCENT innovation summit brought together military and academic minds to discuss ways of increasing effectiveness and lethality via timeliness and data-driven decision making. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Hope Geiger)            

                AFCENT Hosts Innovation Summit            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Staff Sgt. Hope Geiger

VIRIN: 200303-F-TW681-173

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
No. 554,

October Term, 1961.

#### Robinson *v.*California,

370 U. S. 660. The motion of American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California for leave to file brief, as *amicus curiae,*is granted. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Clark,

with whom

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart join, dissenting.

On June 25, 1962, this- Court reversed appellant’s conviction of the offense of being “addicted to the use of narcotics,” 370 U. S. 660. Thereafter the State of California filed an alternate petition for rehearing and for an abatement of the judgment, advising the Court for the first time that appellant had died on August 5,1961, some 10 days prior to the filing here of his jurisdictional statement. Today the Court denies the petition and by its action the mandate, which has been stayed, will now go down. In my view this action by the Court is but a meaningless gesture utterly useless in the disposition of the case — the appellant being dead — and, as I read our cases, is contrary to the general policy this Court has always followed in the issuance of its mandates.

Under our decisions this appeal abated as moot upon the death of the appellant, *Menken*v. *Atlanta,*131 U. S. 405 (1889), and the judgment should have been vacated and the case remanded to the state court for such proceedings as might be appropriate under state law. This is true even though the opinion and judgment of June 25 had been handed down prior to the notice of appellant’s *906death. See *Stewart*v. *Southern R. Co.,*315 U. S. 784 (1942), vacating the prior judgment in the same case, 315 U. S. 283. Moreover, there is no question of costs involved here as there was in *Wetzel*v. *Ohio, ante,*p. 62. I would therefore grant the petition for rehearing and vacate the judgment as moot.

*A. L. Wirin*and *Fred Okrand*on the motion of American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6372
GREGORY ALLEN MILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN WEATHERHOLTZ; WILLIAM MEADOWS; T. WALTON, Sergeant; DAN L. BLYE, Deputy; DON FARLEY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-27-R) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Allen Milton, Appellant Pro Se. James Morton Bowling, IV, ST. JOHN, BOWLING & LAWRENCE, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying hismotion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order denying the appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
From: Mary Brown

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s health proposals

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:27:35 AM

I was delighted to hear the news item on NPR last week that women’s preventative

health care was included in the new health care laws. In my opinion this is long overdue.

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.