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 (1.34 MB)
 
 369th Sustainment Brigade toa 17th Sustainment Brigade national guard
 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene Head, Appellant.

Conviction affirmed: Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Pratt, J., dissenting.
From: melodic_hypnosis@goowy.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:48:26 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.
---

---

EXHIBIT 23.4

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Forms S-8 No. 333-61895 and File No. 333-55970)
of Ampal  American Israel Corporation of our report dated March 6, 2006 relating to
the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Carmel Container Systems
Ltd., included in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

| |                                 
| | --------------------------------
|
|
|
|
| | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
| | Member of Ernst & Young Global  

Haifa ,IsraelMarch 26, 2006



---

---
From: STEVE BANYAI

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: FANATICS DO NOT RULE

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:37:55 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.
From: EG

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to birth control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:56:29 PM

Dear Sir or 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 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,

Elisa Gonzalez
From: Leslie Boyle

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:31:20 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,

Leslie Boyle

2442 W. 107th Street

Chicago, Il 60655
From: janisblades54@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:52:08 AM

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,

Janis Blades

Wichita, KS 67226
From: Frank Wagner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:19:20 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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41746

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE JAIME BRAVO-PINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-638-ALL

--------------------

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Jaime Bravo-Pina (Bravo) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by

being found in the United States without permission after

deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), that the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed

in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for

the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges

the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony
No. 05-41746

-2-

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Bravo’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Bravo

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
#### Michael Kleiner, Appellant, v. Joseph Cohn and Arnold Cohn, Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

January, 1912.)

Negligence—Acts or omissions constituting negligence — Contributory negligence.

Leaving a horse and wagon in front of a factory unattended for three hours while the person who hired them is at work in the factory is such want of care as will render the hirer liable to the owner in case they are stolen, although the former or his employee looked every ten or fifteen minutes from a window on the fifth floor to see if the horse and wagon were still there.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, second district, rendered in favor of the defendants.

Joseph Kleiner (Raymond Y. Ingersoll, of counsel), for appellant.

Julian J. Raphael (Abraham Oberstein, of counsel), for respondents.

Lehman, J.

The defendants hired a horse and wagon from the plaintiff. A thief stole the horse and wagon while they were left unattended in front of the defendants’ place of business. The defendants are liable in this action for the value of the horse and wagon left in their custody, if they failed to exercise reasonable care to guard against loss.

. Accepting the defendants’ story as true,. it appears that the wagon was brought to their place of business at eight o’clock in the morning. From eight until eleven the driver and his helper worked in the defendants’' factory. During that entire time there was no watch kept over the wagon, except that every ten or fifteen minutes .the defendant or one of his workmen would look out from the fifth story window to see whether the wagon was still there. It seems to me that the defendants exercised absolutely no care to safeguard the plaintiff’s property. The mere fact that they looked every ten or fifteen minutes from a window on the fifth floor could *117hardly be calculated to deter a thief from jumping on the wagon and driving off. The horse and wagon were unattended in the street for at least three hours, a constant temptation to a thief to take them. Under these circumstances, I think that no finding that the defendants exercised reasonable care can be sustained.

Seabury and Page, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17566]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, July 14, 2011, 4 p.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The BBG will receive and consider 
recommendations regarding the reorganization of the IBB and BBG staffs, 
the revision of Agency grant agreements, and actions in response to 
regional review studies. The BBG will receive reports from: Individual 
Governors regarding recent activities or trips; the BBG's Strategy and 
Budget Committee and Governance Committee; the International 
Broadcasting Bureau Director; and the Voice of America, the Office of 
Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, 
and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks regarding programming 
coverage updates. The meeting is open to public observation via 
streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the BBG's public Web site 
at http://www.bbg.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-17566 Filed 7-8-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
From: Ernye, Debra (DOT)

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:50:41 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.

Health care and the right to access all aspects thereof should be an overriding concern of

government; entertaining the religious preferences of employers should not. Uphold the

division of church and state not only as it directly pertains to the First Amendment but the

common sense extension whereby religious conviction does not interpret constitutional rights.
From: Kristina LaCelle-Peterson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: no religious employer exemptions for women"s health

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:27:38 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

               <ARTICLE> 5
               <LEGEND>

          THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM
          FIRECOM, INC.'S  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE  SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME 
          STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW FOR 
          THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
          BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

              </LEGEND>
              <MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
                     
          <S>         <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  APR-30-1997
          <PERIOD-END>                       APR-30-1997
          <CASH>                             2,465
          <SECURITIES>  	                 0
          <RECEIVABLES>                      4,340
          <ALLOWANCES>                       293
          <INVENTORY>                        1,264
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                   8,557
          <PP&E>                             1,267
          <DEPRECIATION>                     692
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     9,289
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,930
          <BONDS>                            0
          <COMMON>    		             54
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
          <PREFERRED>                        1,437
          <OTHER-SE>                         3,351
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       9,289
          <SALES>                            15,336
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                   15,336
          <CGS>                              8,052
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                      8,052
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                   4,473
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                   148
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 84
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,579
          <INCOME-TAX>                       1,170
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                1,409
          <DISCONTINUED>                     0
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
          <CHANGES>                          0
          <NET-INCOME>                       1,409
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                      .23
          <EPS-DILUTED>                      .23
                       


</TABLE>