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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
     CommScope, Inc. condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for
     the nine months ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
     by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0001035884                
<NAME>        CommScope, Inc.                
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                          4,820
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 110,848
<ALLOWANCES>                                    4,830
<INVENTORY>                                    31,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              162,731
<PP&E>                                        210,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 77,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                483,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          65,182
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          492
<OTHER-SE>                                    176,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  483,089
<SALES>                                       425,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              425,545
<CGS>                                         327,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 327,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                41,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            26,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   26,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .53
        


</TABLE>
From: Aliza Keddem

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: revemtive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:29:08 PM

To Whom This May Concern:

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.

Respectfully,

Aliza Keddem

Human Sciences

Marylhurst University

Marylhurst, Oregon 97036
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 (8.59 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
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIX CRUZ MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

L. E. SCRIBNER, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-16438

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00656-AWI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Felix Cruz Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

OCT 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16438

We agree with the district court that the California courts’ resolution of

Martinez’s claim that coerced statements were improperly admitted at trial was not

“contrary to, or [ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” and did not “result in a

decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of

the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).

Specifically, the California Court of Appeal’s determination that admission

of the first statement was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18

(1967), because the jury could not have given any weight to the first statement, was

reasonable in light of the jury’s factual findings and the substance of first

statement. See Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Also, the California Court of Appeals reasonably determined that the second

statement was not tainted by the first interview, in light of the time that elapsed

between the interviews of the witness, the less confrontational manner in which the

second interview was conducted, and the substance of the second statement. See

Garvin v. Farmon, 258 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2001).

 Accordingly, admission of the first statement did not have a substantial and

injurious effect on the jury’s verdict. See Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121-22

(2007) (“[I]n § 2254 proceedings a court must assess the prejudicial impact of
3 09-16438

constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the ‘substantial and

injurious effect’ standard set forth in Brecht [v. Abrahamson], 507 U.S. 619

[1993], whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it

for harmlessness . . . .”).

AFFIRMED.
No. 500, Misc.

#### Carmack *v.*Wiman, Warden.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*MacDonald Gallion,*Attorney General of Alabama, and *David W. Clark,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Court of Appeals of Alabama. Certiorari denied.
No. 454, Misc.

#### Schneider *v.*New York.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Manuel W. Levine*for respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
#### Harry A. Siegel, Respondent, *v.*Alfred H. Goldstone, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1912.)

Interpleader — Right to interplead holders of particular claims — Actions — Parties.

Where, in an action by the' assignee of one partner to recover a debt due to the firm, the other partner notifies the defendant not to pay the debt except to him and makes demand therefor, the defendant is entitled to an order of interpleader making the plaintiff’s assignor a party defendant.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the City Court of the city of Hew York denying his motion for interpleader.

George A. Hewman, for appellant.

Jacob Stone Friedman, for respondent.

Seabtjry, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for interpleader. It appears that the defendant was indebted to Bodker & Tanzman who were partners. Plaintiff sues for the amount of the debt under an assignment from Bodker. Tanzman gave written notice to the defendant not to pay the amount to Bodker or his assignee and demanded payment to him. We are of the opinion that the motion for interpleader should have been granted. The plaintiff claimed as the assignee of one partner and the other partner also claimed to be entitled to the payment of the debt which the plaintiff claimed should be paid to him. The plaintiff and Tanzman were not acting in collusion. The defendant was willing to pay the debt to whoever was entitled to receive payment. I can see no good reason why the defendant should not pay the money into court and the plaintiff and Tanzman be allowed to litigate this question. While the authorities on the subject are not uniform, the late case of Pouch v. Prudential Ins. Company, 146 App. Div. 612, sustains the view here expressed.

*470Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Gerard and Hotchkiss, JJ*., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, ■ and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 


EL CAPITAN PRECIOUS METALS, INC.


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2  TO


2015 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


 


This Amendment No. 2
dated April 22, 2016 (this “Amendment”) amends the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan of El
Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. (the “Company”) (the “Plan”). Except as otherwise
explicitly set forth herein, all provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used in this
Amendment without definition shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.


 


WHEREAS, the Plan was adopted
by the Company pursuant to resolutions of the Board of Directors on October 8, 2015;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires
to amend the Plan as hereinafter provided in order to increase the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the Plan from
23,000,000 to 28,000,000; and


 





WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors approved the substance of this Amendment as of April 22, 2016 and, accordingly, the Company desires
to amend the Plan as hereinafter provided.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:


 


1.     Increase in Number
of Shares Subject to the Plan.  Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“3.1. Number
of Shares. Subject to adjustment in connection with a Capitalization Adjustment, the number of shares of Common Stock which
may be issued under the Plan shall not exceed 28,000,000 shares of Common Stock. Shares of Common Stock that are issued under the
Plan or are subject to outstanding Incentives will be applied to reduce the maximum number of shares of Common Stock remaining
available for issuance under the Plan. For purposes of clarification, the award of any Incentives payable only in cash will not
reduce the number of shares of Common Stock remaining and available to be issued under the Plan. Shares may be issued in connection
with a merger or acquisition as permitted by NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c) or, if applicable, NYSE Listed Company Manual Section
303A.08, AMEX Company Guide Section 711 or other applicable rule, and such issuance will not reduce the number of shares available
for issuance under the Plan”


 


2.     Effective
Date.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof.
From: Hannah Dickinson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventative Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:11:32 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.

Thank you,

Hannah Dickinson
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1202

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 16, 2001

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the

Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

AN ACT

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.

App.) to extend the authorization of appropriations for

the Office of Government Ethics through fiscal year

2006.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Office of Government

5 Ethics Authorization Act of 2001’’.
2

S 1202 RFH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS.

3 Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978

4 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ‘‘1997 through

5 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘2002 through 2006’’.

Passed the Senate November 15, 2001.

Attest: JERI THOMSON,

Secretary.
From: Maggi Schrader

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:39:00 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.

-- 

Maggi Schrader
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 (2.8 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
From: KRace72103@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Religious Refusal" Exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:54:47 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine pertaining 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,

Karla M. Lortz

Karla M. Lortz

31 Stonebrook Dr.

Delaware, OH 43015

(740)369-5730

krl31dr@aol.com

K8HDO

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the

hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” Sen. Edward Kennedy
From: David and Amy Cookson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:08:30 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,

David and Amy Cookson
Sherwood, Oregon
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MELINDA S. MURRAY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4187 ) PINGORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC; ) PLANTATION HOMEOWNRES, INC, ) UNKNOWN TENANT IN POSSESSION 1, ) UNKNOWN TENANT IN POSSESSION 2, ) UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MELINDA S. ) MURRAY, ) )

Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed December 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Elizabeth G. Rice, Judge. Melinda S. Murray, pro se. Charles P. Gufford of McCalla Raymer Liebert Pierce, LLC, Orlando, for Appellee Pingora Loan Services, LLC. No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.- 2 -

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.