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

    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 (2.06 MB)
 
 Grand Slam Wing AEW 379TH AEW 379TH al udeid al Udeid Air Base Sothwest Asia AF.MIL Public Affairs Department of Defense Operation Inherent Resolve Centcom 379th Air Expeditionary Wing Qatar AIR 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
No. 296.

#### Reiling *v.*Hammersten.

*T. Eugene Thompson*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Minnesota. Certiorari denied.
From: Jennifer Landig

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:24:26 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,

Jennifer Landig

9 Bergenia

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Page | of 1

REC)ALBG-N

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 31, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 09, 2011

Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80edc433
‘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-2010-0017-0064
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Jay & Dianne Dean and Mae Moyers
Address:

5356 E. Brairwood Circle

Centennial, CO, 80122

General Comment

NARAL is asking that to be religious organizations should not be excluded from this bill.
However, we would encourage the broading of the religious exemption to include right-to-life
organizations, Catholic hospitals, and Christian radio stations.

Contraceptives are not a medical necessity and pregnancy is not a disease. Birth control is widely
available and publicly funded programs already provide it for women who cannot afford it.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900..._ 8/31/2011
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 (1.2 MB)
 
 mindef egypt Department of Defense Pentagon Mark T. Esper secretary of defense Mark T Esper minister of defense
 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: LAUSD User

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:47:56 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.

Sincerely,

Lori Kegler
[Civ. No. 501.

Second Appellate District.

June 26, 1908.]

#### MUNGER’S LAUNDRY COMPANY, Appellant, v. N. A. RANKIN, Respondent.

Contract or Employment—Restraint or Work por Rival—Expiration or Time Before Appeal—Dismissal.—In an' action to enjoin a former employee of the defendant from breaking his contract not to solicit work for a rival company, within six months after the term of his employment, in which no claim of damages was made, and which was dismissed upon demurrer to the complaint, an appeal from the judgment taken after the six months had fully elapsed presents merely a moot case for decision. Even if the judgment were erroneous, plaintiff possesses no rights entitling him to relief under his complaint, and the appeal must be dismissed.

*449APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Walter Bordwell, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Milton K. Young, for Appellant.

G. L. Whitham, for Respondent.

ALLEN, P. J.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment dismissing an action.

Plaintiff sought in this action to enjoin defendant, who was a former employee, from soliciting work for a rival company within certain prescribed territory for a period of six months after the term of his employment with plaintiff, basing such right upon a written agreement of defendant by which, in consideration of $6, he agreed in his original contract of employment not to engage in such business of soliciting for a rival company within such territory for the time mentioned. The contract of employment between plaintiff and defendant was terminated on March 21, 1906, and the six months within which he had agreed not to engage in business within such territory expired September 21, 1906. The action was brought in June. The demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the court, and the judgment appealed from entered July 20, 1906. The notice of appeal was given in December following.

It will be observed that at the date of the appeal, and at all times since September 21, 1906, defendant was at liberty to continue his work, even assuming the validity of the contract with plaintiff. No claim of damages was made, and the only question involved was the right to enjoin the defendant from his work between the date of employment and September 21st. The appeal before this court, therefore, seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon any existing facts or rights and is, in consequence, a moot case. *{Adams*v. *Union R. Co.,*21 R. I. 134, [42 Atl. 515].) Were the judgment erroneous, and by reason thereof subject to reversal, plaintiff does not now possess, and has not since September 21, 1906, possessed any rights under the *450allegations of his complaint entitling him to relief, and the determination of the question involved is of no material consequence to appellant.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in conformity with the action of the supréme court in the case of *Kinney*v. *Newlin et al.,*L. A. No. 681, entered October 11, 1900, and in *Foster*v. *Smith,*115 Cal. 611, [47 Pac. 591].

Shaw, J., and Taggart, J., concurred.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-129-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Exhibit 23




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




To the Board of Directors
Hills Bancorporation


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
January  25,  1996  with   respect  to  the   financial   statements   of  Hills
Bancorporation  and  subsidiary  included  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of
Hills  Bancorporation  for the year  ended  December  31,  1995 in  Registration
Statement No.  33-73606 on Form S-8 filed December 30, 1993 and in  Registration
Statement No. 33-2657 on Form S-8 filed January 10, 1986



                                               /s/ McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP
                                              ----------------------------

Iowa City, Iowa
January 25, 1996
From: Elizabeth King

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:57:05 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I am very excited to hear of 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.

It is wonderful to know that soon there will be a policy which 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.

And let us not forget, it will reduce the number of abortions and save women's lives.

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

Sincerely,

Elizabeth King

1155 Harvard rd

Piedmont, ca 94610
EX-4.20



 Exhibit 4.20 

Shares Subscription Agreement 
 (This
Agreement is entered into between the following parties on January 30, 2016 in Beijing) 
 Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (“China
Tower”) 
 Subscriber: China Mobile Group Guangdong Co., Ltd. 

Whereas the issuer and the subscriber have signed the Transaction Agreement of the Existing Telecommunication Tower and related Assets by Issuance of
Shares and Payment of Cash on October 14, 2015. Based on the above agreement and the specific circumstances of delivery of towers and related assets, the issuer has determined to issue a total of 119,344,615,024 shares at a par value of RMB1
per share. 
  

	1.	Subscription Price 

 RMB1 per share. 

 

	2.	Subscription Amount and Quantity 

 The subscriber confirms to pay RMB7,300,716,496 to subscribe
for 7,300,716,496 shares. 
  

	3.	Subscription Method 

 The subscriber agrees to subscribe for the shares issued by investing with
assets. 
  

	4.	Payment Method 

 The subscriber has completed the actual payment of contribution before
December 31, 2015. 
  

	5.	Shareholders’ Rights and Obligations 

 The both parties confirm that the subscriber shall
become the owner of shares subscribed for in this transaction from the effective date of this Agreement, and enjoy its shareholder rights and bear the corresponding obligations for such shares. The both parties agree that the issuer shall complete
the change to register of shareholders, revision of Articles of Association and change to industrial and commercial registration within 30 days after signing this Shares Subscription Agreement. 

 

	6.	Entry into Force and Counterparts 

 This Agreement shall enter into force on December 31,
2015. This agreement is executed in six counterparts, each party holding two copies, and the rest shall be submitted for examination and approval/record filing. 

(Reminder of this page intentionally left blank) 








	
	Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (chop)
	Legal representative or authorized representative
	
	 /s/ GAO Chunlei

	
	Subscriber: China Mobile Group Guangdong Co., Ltd.
	Legal representative or authorized representative
	
	 /s/ JIAN Qin
From: Claudia Greco

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Coverage of Preventive Care

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:51:49 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.

Claudia Greco
From: AUDREY KEYES

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Refusal

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:22:57 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.

Summer is here. Life has got to be a little easier, Audrey
No. 177, Misc.

#### Lorentzen *v.*Washington et al.

Supreme Court of Washington. Certiorari denied.
#### Henry Clews, Appellant, v. Walter L. Sessions, Henry Sheldon and others, Respondents.

Judgment and order appealed from in each case affirmed. Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
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 (3.94 MB)
 
 380 ESFS 380 EMDG MWD Military Working Dogs handlers Military Working dogs
 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: Meacham, Thomas

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment on religious exemption on IOM contraception recommendation

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:34:20 AM

Dear Sir/Madam,

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 am a person of faith, but if a person’s religion forbids them from selling contraceptives, I would

expect them not to own pharmacies or work in them. Anything else is forcing their view of religion

down another person’s throat. 

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.

Thanks! Tom Meacham
From: Clark L. Natwick

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:32:27 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.

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.

Sincerely,

Clark Natwick
#### William Swatling, Appellant, v. Felix Weinbrecht, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.