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 (2.3 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: fisca@optimum.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:59 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,

Caroline Fischer

Manhasset, NY 11030
#### Edward Conley and another, Appellants, v. The Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Haight, J., not voting.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00039-CR

Darrell Wayne MOFFETT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B1779

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

No. 04-19-00040-CR

Teresa Jo BRUFFETT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B1780

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 4, 2019.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
From: Wendy Hanes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Employer opt outs related to contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:43:29 PM
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 25 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

KEN SYKES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JOHNNY F. DIRCK, individually, and as Director of the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, JAMES STOVER, individually, and as Director of Cleet, BILL CASSINGHAM, individually, and as Director of Cleet, BOB RICKS, individually, and as Director of Cleet, DAVE BEEN, individually, and as Director of Cleet, KYLE GREENFIELD, individually, and as Director of Cleet, and KENNETH VAN HOY, individually, and as Director of Cleet,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-6131 (W.D. of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CIV-95-2037-R)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BeforeBALDOCK , BRORBY, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.-2-

Ken W. Sykes filed this civil rights action againstJohnny F. Dirck, James Stover, Bill Cassingham, Bob Ricks, Dave Been, Kyle Greenfield, and Kenneth Van Hoy (“the Defendants”) in their individual capa cities and in their official capacities as directors of the Council on Law Enfor cement Education and Training. The district court granted the defendant s’ summary judgment motion, holding as follows: (1) Defendants were entitled to absolute immunity as to any claims relating to actions taken in their individua l capacities; (2) Defendants were not persons for purposes of § 1983 when they were a cting in their official capacities as officers of the State of Oklahoma; (3 ) Sykes had not met his burden of demonstrating that he was entitled to injunctive relief; and (4) Defendants, whether acting in their individual or official capa caties, were clothed with sovereign immunity and were not proper parties to S ykes action under Oklahoma law. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same legal standard used by the district court under Fed . R. C. P. 56(c). Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc. , 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). “Summary judgment is appropriate when thereis no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Russillo v. Scarborough , 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991).-3-

This court has reviewed the parties briefs and cont entions and has conducted a de novo review of the district court’s opinion and the rec ord on appeal. Finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons set out in the district court’s Order dated March 8, 19 96.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
From: Sue Gier

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Accept IOM"s recommendations--reject proposed religious-refusal exeption provisions!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:46:59 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,

Sue Gier

Singers Glen, VA 22850
From: Susan Gunn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Greatly saddened at Dept of HHS

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:07:06 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Have you researched the effects of the birth control pill? FYI...it prevents implantation of a fertilized

egg...which is a human life....

Did you know that those taking birth control pills starting at a young age battle breast cancer later in

life?

What kind of 'health' is that?

What are you doing to our young women and to the medical profession?

Again, I am deeply saddened.

Sincerely,

Susan Gunn

18649 Summerville Road

Lemmon, SD 57638
From: B.N. Bomze

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:58:14 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,

B.N. Bomze

2350 Broadway

#520

New York, NY 10024
##### 



Exhibit 99.4



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 Annual Report on Form 40-F of Rogers Communications
Inc., a corporation continued under the laws of British Columbia (the
Company) for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers 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.

|                    |  |                                                                                  
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Edward S. Rogers
Edward S. Rogers
President and Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  |                                                                                  
|Dated: May 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Alan D. Horn
Alan D. Horn
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
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
  Clear Search
 
  FIRST

        

        

        
        1 (current)
        
        2
        

        


        


        LAST
 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
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1140 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1140

   To amend chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
 greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle 
                          franchise contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2001

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Warner, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Mr. Reid, Mr. Craig, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
    Bennett, Ms. Snowe, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Hutchinson) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
 greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle 
                          franchise contracts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract 
Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

    (a) Motor Vehicle Franchise Contracts.--Chapter 1 of title 9, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 17. Motor vehicle franchise contracts
    ``(a) For purposes of this section, the term--
            ``(1) `motor vehicle' has the meaning given such term under 
        section 30102(6) of title 49; and
            ``(2) `motor vehicle franchise contract' means a contract 
        under which a motor vehicle manufacturer, importer, or 
        distributor sells motor vehicles to any other person for resale 
        to an ultimate purchaser and authorizes such other person to 
        repair and service the manufacturer's motor vehicles.
    ``(b) Whenever a motor vehicle franchise contract provides for the 
use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising out of or relating 
to the contract, arbitration may be used to settle such controversy 
only if after such controversy arises both parties consent in writing 
to use arbitration to settle such controversy.
    ``(c) Whenever arbitration is elected to settle a dispute under a 
motor vehicle franchise contract, the arbitrator shall provide the 
parties to the contract with a written explanation of the factual and 
legal basis for the award.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``17. Motor vehicle franchise contracts.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to contracts entered 
into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or extended after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
From: Luis Howard

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:09:55 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, not only because chemical contraceptives are proven to

increase the risk of breast cancer, but because the insurance companies are simply

going to pass those mandated costs on to their policy holders in the form of higher

premiums!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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,

Luis Howard

Sahuarita, Arizona
#### Widincamp *v.*James.

Cobb, P. J.

1. When in a claim case the levy had been dismissed for the want of prosecution, and the case thereafter reinstated by the judge, it was not permissible for the claimant to make up an issue in the claim ease and have it determined whether the case was properly reinstated. If for any reason the order of reinstatement was irregular or erroneous, a formal motion should be made to review the order reinstating the case.

*280Submitted June 4,

Decided August 14, 1907.

Claim. Before Judge Rawlings. Tattnall superior court. October 3, 1906.

*W. T. Burlchalier,*for plaintiff in error. *O. L. Morgan,*contra.

2. In a claim ease the sole issue is whether the property is subject or not subject. *Southern Mining Co.*v. *Brown,*107 *Ga.*269 (33 S. E. 731) *; Ray*v. *Atlanta Banking Co.,*110 *Ga.*305 (35 S. E. 117). And Che verdict in such a case should be so phrased as to determine this issue with definiteness.

3. A verdict in a claim case, which contains merely a finding for the plaintiff of a given sum of money, does not determine definitely the issue as to whether the property levied on is subject or not subject.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
From: Lucienne Nicholson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative care for all women

Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 9:05:33 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 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.
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    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(i)the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and(ii)the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NSTAR.  Dated: October 31, 2007By:/s/ THOMAS J. MAYThomas J. MayChairman, President andChief Executive Officer