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  Home
  MEDIA
  NEWS ARTICLES
  News Article View
 News
 Mattis, State Department Officials Meet With Middle East Representatives at the Pentagon DoD News, Defense Media Activity
 Defense Secretary James N. Mattisand U.S. Department of State officials hosted a regional security roundtable at the Pentagon Aug. 29 with representatives from the Gulf Cooperation Council states -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman -- along with Egypt, Jordan and Morocco. In a statement summarizing the meeting, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said Mattis discussed a broad range of security issues with the diplomatic and defense officials. The secretary thanked the group for their regional leadership and years of close cooperation with the United States, White said. The representatives discussed working together against common security challenges, and agreed to reconvene in the coming months to continue discussions on shared strategic objectives and regional challenges, she said.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 Related Biographies James N. Mattis
  Dana W. White
 Related Links Readout of Secretary of Defense Middle East Security Roundtable Discussion
 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: Kristyn Felman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 5:49:27 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,

Kristyn Felman

2925 Perrysville Ave

Pittsburgh, PA 15214
From: Stephan Freeman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Health Care Law

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:39:47 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.

-- 

Stephan J. Freeman, Attorney at Law

Freeman & Freeman

685 1st Ave N.

St Petersburg, FL 33701

(o)727-896-2288

(f)727-822-3397

www.freemanlaw.net

sjf@freemanlaw.net
From: Beth Cole

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:08:06 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001035826
<NAME> NETBANK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,491
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    404,024
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,228,104
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,701,123
<DEPOSITS>                                     909,261
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,141
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,061
<LONG-TERM>                                    515,643
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,701,123
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,268
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,304
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   176
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                30,748
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,428
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,639
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,109
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     (11)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 180
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (562)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (370)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,091
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       721
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,343
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,164
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      500
<RECOVERIES>                                       158
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,540
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,540
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
From: thredbende@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Accept IOM"s Recommendations on Preventive Care for Women

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:10:46 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 Catholic hospitals 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. 211.

#### Cities Service Oil Co. *v.*Tobriner et al.

*George H. Colin*for petitioner. *Chester H. Gray, Milton D. Korman*and *Hubert B. Pair*for respondents.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6099** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LUIS HERNANDEZ

- ESPINOZA, a/k/a Raphael Lopez, a/k/a Rafael Lopez , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00112

- D

- 1; 7:11

- cv - 00125

- D )

Submitted : November 30, 2012 Decided: December 4, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Luis Hernandez

- Espinoza, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luis Hernandez

- Espinoza seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge i ssues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- E l v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hernandez

- Espinoza has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (File No. 333-112150, 333- 109750, 333-109785, 333-89364, and 333-73766),
      Form S-8 (File No. 333-64618), and Form S-1 (File No. 333-122717, 333-121775,
      333-117268, and 333-129239) of Multiband Corporation and subsidiaries of our
      report dated March 23, 2007, which appears in this annual report on Form 10-K
      for the year ended December 31, 2006.





As
      discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January
      1, 2006, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement
      No.
      123(R), “Share-Based Payment.”








/s/
      VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP







Minneapolis,
      Minnesota


April
      2,
      2007
#### PRESSER *v.*UNITED STATES.

No. 25.

Argued March 22, 26, 1962. — Restored to the calendar for reargument April 2, 1962. — Reargued October 8, 1962. — ■

Decided November 13, 1962.

*John G. Cardinal*reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were *Edwin Knachel*and *Robert E. Freed.*

*Stephen J. Poliak*reargued the cause for the United States. On the briefs were *Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Sidney M. Glazer.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
From: Anita Stevens

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Conscience protection in healthcare

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:21:54 PM

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.

Anita Stevens

9178 152nd Ave NE

Hamilton, ND 58238

701-265-4943
From: Jeff Warncke [mailto:jswarncke@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5:15 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Fwd: Delay in implemeting new ERISA disability claim regulations

Dear Sirs,

I am an attorney whose practice, for 20+ years, has focused on disability insurance denials. I 

have carefully followed the DOL's ERISA claim regulations through previous revisions, and 

have followed the impending regulatory revision equally closely.

It is my position that the DOL's stated intention to delay implementation of the new regulation is 

unlawful, and represents a capitulation to monied interests (namely the insurance industry) at the 

expense of reasonable consumer protection. It should be noted that DOL has previously 

addressed all the concerns raised by the purported need for delay, in a process that was consistent 

with its regulatory and rule making authority. Insurance companies and plans had plenty of time 

to make their case then, and there is no reason to give them a second bite at the apple now. The 

rule making process has closed. Any attempt to circumvent the rule making process will 

assuredly be met with public interest litigation.

The DOL evaluated the purported cost increases now raised by plans and insurance companies 

and concluded that the costs would be minimal compared to the consumer protections to be 

achieved. After careful consideration listening to both claimants and insurance companies and 

plans, DOL implemented well-thought out regulations. Any backtracking is not only unlawful, 

but it will only harm the most vulnerable Americans - namely working Americans who became 

too sick to work, who no longer get a paycheck, and whose insurers have denied them the 

financial protection so critical to survival. Procedural protections are vital to these people. I 

know because I live in the trenches with them. 

I hope you will reconsider and allow the revised regulations to take effect as required by law.

Jeffrey S. Warncke

Evans, Scholz,Williams & Warncke LLC

www.theinsuranceattorneys.net

3490 Piedmont Rd., N.E., Suite 1200, Atlanta, GA 30305

Tel 404-841-9400, x 41 Fax 888-738-5949
From: Jim Rosvall

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s health

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:39:26 PM

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.

Jim Rosvall

California
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>


                            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 periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2004 (the "Report") of Industrial  Minerals,  Inc. (the "Company")
I, John Melnyk,  Acting Chief Executive  Officer,  President and Director of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated: November 10, 2004

/s/John Melnyk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Melnyk, Acting Chief Executive Officer, President


         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Stella D. Carlos Salmeron v. Felipe De Jesus Garcia Santacruz

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00087

- CV

Trial court case number: 1117543

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2 of Harris County

After receiving notice from appellee that his automobile liability insurance carrier, ACCC Insurance Company, was declared to be in hazardous financial condition and placed into rehabilitation by a district court in Travis County, Texas. In connection with this declaration, an automatic stay of 90 days was imposed that was applicable to judicial proceedings against ACCC’s insureds. Accordingly, the Court issued an order, withdrawing the case from submission and abating the appeal and requesting status updates no later than February 1, 2021.

In January 2021, appellee filed a notice that ACCC was declared insolvent and placed into liquidation on December 14, 2020, but the 250th District Court of Travis County, Texa s. Appellee stated that, pursuant to Texas Insurance Code Section 462.309, an automatic six

- month stay became effective until June 30, 2021. Appellant filed an objection to this notice.

In February 2021, appellee filed a status update , asking the Court to overrule appellant’s objection. Since February 2021, no further status updates have occurred and the automatic stay, which was alleged to extend until June 30, 2021, should have expired.

The Court requests a response from appellee within 10 days reg arding the status of the automatic stay or the Court will lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal on the active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/ s/ Peter Kelly

______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ December 14, 2021

_____