alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 (3.96 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
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 
 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 of Vail Banks, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form
        10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary S. Judd, Chief
        Executive Officer and President (principal executive 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; and
 
 2.  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
        Gary S. Judd
 
 Gary
        S.
        Judd
 Chief
        Executive Officer and President
 November
        10, 2005
From: jtcampe5@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:11:48 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,

Tracy Campe

Manteno, IL 60950
From: p.northrop@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:15:15 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,

Pat Northrop

The Villages, FL 32162
(AMS

- NOP

- 09

- 0074; NOP

- 09

- 01PR)

Stakeholder communication for the record:

On Feb. 7 , 2012 , Dr. David Granatstein of Washi ngton State University called Mark Lipson, USDA Organic and Sustainable Agriculture policy advisor, with some questions about the 2012 sunset rulemaking and the recommendation concerning streptomycin for fireblight control.

Specifically he wanted to understand the process by which a proposed rule is designated “significant” and

when the consideration o f economic impacts occurs. Mr. Lipson explained that OMB determines the designation of “significance” prior to the issuance of a proposed rule, and what the requirements (i.e. economic impact analysis) are for the rulemaking in such cases. Mr. Lipson als o clarified that the NOSB does not have a statutory requirement or authority to consider economic impacts in making its recommendations.

He also asked about the NOSB’s “double rec ommendation” on streptomycin. Mr. Lipson was not immediately clear on this and said he would research it further. On Feb. 8, 2012, Mr. Lipson emailed him the official NOSB record of decision from 4/29/11, in which the NOSB did indeed make two recommendations

to USDA

- NOP regarding streptomycin. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091714
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of webMethods, Inc
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary Dridi, the
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of the Company hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that: (1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: August 9, 2004
    
    /S/ MARY DRIDIName: Mary Dridi
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
From: Syverson, Lavetta (ICA)

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:07:43 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.

 Lavetta Syverson

 North Dakota
<PAGE>

                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
                         THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                                NET.B@NK, INC.


Pursuant to Sections 14-2-1002 and - 1006 of the Georgia Business Corporation
Code (the "Code"), the Articles of Incorporation of Net.B@nk, Inc. (the
"Corporation") are hereby amended according to these Articles of Amendment.

                                      I.

         The current name of the Corporation is Net.B@nk, Inc.

                                      II.

          On April 27, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly
adopted the following amendment (the "Amendment") to the Corporation's
Articles of Incorporation:

              Article I of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation shall be
              deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

                   Article I: The name of the Corporation is NetBank, Inc.

                                      III.

          Pursuant to Section 14-2-1002(6) of the Code, no shareholder vote
is required for the adoption and approval of the Amendment.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these Articles of Amendment have been signed by
Robert E. Bowers, Secretary, as of the 27th day of April, 2000.

                                      NET.B@NK, INC.



                                      By:  /s/ Robert E. Bowers
                                      -----------------------------
                                      Robert E. Bowers, Secretary
AtATat4\o PkTTE.a'Scm

V.

THE STfcTE dF TEXT'S

PRO ^E Mdt\6M FoR kxT&US\fcM oF TiKt To

PtL& PETlT.ioia. Ftott. fc\-SCtl6TiortPvSm &EVt£viUN 10 2015

-r. _. , ^53®' Anosta. Clerk

TO THE ttoKioSAWUS. CoutCT or ca\tMi4kL kPPEM-S ».

Ca<>r\e.s nou) . Ahe. Qppel\a^\ / pe-Vt-tio'nec lr\ -vW aVjoue

S^v^Wd ar\di r\umVi«Lfedl cause. ar^A rcs^ec\$WvW tnoues

tK\t> .konoccfeU .cou*V \ii exlertd 4-\\e Vi^e ftc ftVirxa Wve

appeViar\Vs pe-V\-t\o<v Voc olListreA-ioracv^ fevneuj \r\ -vh\* cause

arv^ t* Suppoc-V +Y\«eo-P' uaauVd Shoui Vo -VW. CcucV *\\e ft\\ou3\W.

1. The 5Ax^W a.-\cV (maiaWc o£ -VK\^ cast. \<\ 4A\e

CourA uP ftppea\s is* Ai\W>o Pa-VWcson \f. The ^>\aAe o PTeKQS >

Qppeal (\t>. OS-t^~GoM5o-C0.

J. The tyVv^le ar\*A (Number o£ -V\\e case \r\ \W. M\a\

CourV \s\ The SVaW op Texas V. Aa-Voaio Pa-Hec son» cause

oo, F\0-5ct^04"^: &o*v% *h<f Hvh tovsVfd Cojl*\ o£ Octttas

3. The appeWaM was Ces(\u\ck<} oP \V\e -Pctibrxu,

o-P-PervSc o$ Qa^a/a^aAe-dl CfiHhefM| U3\\V\ (k deadly weapon

M. Pa/x\<iV\m€i\\ uJas assessed aA \\& \«\pr\son meat .

^>« The Cjqcnusc^da uias <vP$u<v\ea \r\ \\\t RPvK

(WV o9 Precis On ffW VI , A0\6S ri, rnm

* FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 10 2S;5

Abel Acosta, Clerk

CMlSt KXfc.

ISOhV 4 1v\ tue. court of

4 CftlH\ KlAL NP?EN_S

=X<*6 4: OF TExKs • RECEIVED IN

nOtl,RTOFCR«ALAPPa
(o. The <dieadUf\e Aor ViUru^ -VY\e appeWacvVs peAcAta*.

*1. An extension a£ \\one period £>P t\\<\eV\^ CAoT^ ektus

\S rea^uesAed 4\>aV ioouAd <v\a.k* A-W <^ue daAe Auau^t 11»aoIS .

£. Mo pr^Df reoue^l for on ex\er\sto<v oP V\«xe has

Wen made.

S. The WAs fe\\ed upon \o sWu> c^gqcJI Cause tar A-W

ex4©\slon are as ^oUfeas '. The QppeA\a<U I•• pe.+\W<ve* usqs tepces«n4«d V*^ coucV appoinWd CcurxseA dutxna appeaA o£

+kis Case, The CculA Wis ce&sed Vo appoint counse\ ^

rvk a |ti-iV(fl(\ ftr dliscx^onGtvj^ ceuveto.. Thtfe-fecev ad dltAtonal

-Kme Vs needed ftr +ke Gppe\W\ Ao e.tAW prepare orA

P»\t \Ye. peAvVfon Pre,-S« . 6( Seek \ec^a\ QSS\sW\ce in AW

\wV\ete&ce » 9(eW\Ses <£o<xsM&recl » A-Y\e appettarxA I <*fcA\A\DA£r respecAftiW^ ceases4 AhaA 4A\\s VWjtaVAt (W\ exAe'xd V;*ve

ftr Q\xac^ Ata peAiAion tor dt\$cCeA\o<\af^ -fevveuj \n AKk cause

ta Auqus4 Hi ao\s.

iWecAtUk SiWWlj

AtvW'vo PetAAeTSOrN* ft0-5e

TDavlb. IB50693

Te\&td UcsiA

KW ^dsW) sTeXQS 1557&
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30490

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT KEVIN MCCARTNEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CLYDE TERRAL; MIKE VILLARD; CLIFFORD STRIDDER;

JAMES BUCK; CHARLES WAGNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * *

__________________

c/w No. 98-30491

__________________

ROBERT KEVIN MCCARTNEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KEITH PERKINS; JEFF CLARK; DALE PARKER; RAY DELCOMYN;

TOM RIBAUDO; CLIFFORD STRIDDER, III,

 Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * 

___________________ 

c/w No. 98-30492

____________________

ROBERT KEVIN MCCARTNEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CLIFFORD STRIDDER, III; THOMAS RIBAUDO,

 Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 98-30490, 98-30491, 98-30492, 98-30493, 98-30494

-2-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

* * * * * * * * * *

__________________

c/w No. 98-30493

__________________

ROBERT KEVIN MCCARTNEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CLYDE TERRAL; MIKE VILLARD; CHARLES WAGNER;

JAMES BUCK; CLIFFORD STRIDDER,

 Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * *

__________________

c/w No. 98-30494

___________________

ROBERT KEVIN MCCARTNEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES BUCK; CHARLES WAGNER; VERNON CREECY; 

WILLIAM HILTON; MIKE VILLARD; MONIQUE METOYER; JOHN DOE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC Nos. 98-CV-38 c/w 98-CV-39, 98-CV-40,

98-CV-41, 98-CV-42 

- - - - - - - - - -

August 26, 1998

Before SMITH, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
Nos. 98-30490, 98-30491, 98-30492, 98-30493, 98-30494

-3-

Robert Kevin McCartney, Louisiana state prisoner #358987,

appeals from the district court’s dismissals of his five civil

rights complaints as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

These cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. 

McCartney argues that the district court erred by dismissing his

complaints as repetitious and duplicative of earlier litigation. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Because McCartney’s appeals are frivolous, they are DISMISSED. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. 

We previously warned McCartney that additional frivolous

appeals would result in the imposition of sanctions against him. 

Accordingly, McCartney is BARRED from filing any pro se civil

appeal in this court without the prior written approval of an

active judge of this court. Further, he is BARRED from filing

any pro se initial civil pleading in any court which is subject

to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written

permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this

court and the clerks of all federal district courts subject to

the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to

McCartney, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with

this bar.

APPEALS DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
The Honorable Joe Resweber 

Harris County Attorney 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Opinion No. H-927 

Re: Whether a judge is 

a retired judge for purposes 

of article 2338-lc, V.T.C.S. 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the meaning of 

the term "retired judge" for purposes of article 2338-lc, 

V.T.C.S. Article 2338-1~ provides that under certain 

circumstances, the presiding judge of the administrative 

judicial district may appoint a "retired judge of a special 

juvenile court or a domestic relations court," so long as 

"the retired judge voluntarily retired from office." Sec. 

1 (a). 

Judges of special juvenile courts and domestic relations 

courts are not included within the provisions of article 

6228h, V.T.C.S. which deal with the retirement of district 

judges. Rather, such judges retire pursuant to article 

6228g, V.T.C.S., the County and District Retirement Act. 

That statute defines "retirement" as 

withdrawal from service with a retirement 

benefit granted under the provisions of 

this Act. Sec. 2(22). 

In our opinion, because article 2338-1~ does not itself 

define the term "retired judge," it is appropriate to refer 

to the statute which provides for the retirement of judges 

of special juvenile and domestic relations courts. Since 

that statute, article 6228g, defines "retirement" to mean 

only withdrawal from service which is pursuant thereto, 

it is our opinion that a "retired judge" for purposes of 

article 2338-1~ is a judge who has retired pursuant to the 

terms of article 6228g. 

p. 3880 
The Honorable Joe Resweber - page 2 (H-927) 

SUMMARY 

A "retired judge" for purposes of 

article 2338-1~ is a judge who has 

retired pursuant to the terms of article 

6228g. 

// Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: f,,' 

T‘.~ 

kq ,Llp'.' 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

,. 

F.4AL2zA 9 

HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 3881 

\
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 -0401

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF: A. S.D., A Minor. O R D E R

_________________ The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on September 22, 2020 . Nothing further has been filed, and the opening brief is now overdue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant L.N.D. shall prepare, file and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than December 7 , 2020. Failure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Appellant L.N.D. and to all parties of record.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court November 6 2020

11/06/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0401
From: Juliet Cassell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:09:36 AM

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,

Juliet Cassell
Fayetteville, Arkansas