alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**NIH Office of Extramural Research
        [ Search This Site ]               [ Document Index ]               [ Site Map ]Return To NIH Guide Home Page:     [ Graphical Version ]     [ Text Version ]- December 8  December 1November 24
- November 3  October 27October 20
- October 13  October 6September 29
- September 22  September 1August 25
- August 18  August 11August 4
- July 28  July 21July 14
- June 30  June 23June 16
- June 9  June 2May 26
- May 19  May 12May 5
- April 28  April 14April 7
- March 31  March 24March 17
- March 10  March 3Feburary 24
- Feburary 17  February 10Feburary 3
- January 27  January 20January 13
*Go To OER:     [ Graphical Version ]     [ Text Only Version ]
web posting: 1997/11/10*Webmaster*      *

**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
*** RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE ***
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
AMERITECH CORPORATION'S MARCH 31, 1996 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         164,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,992,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                   210,300
<INVENTORY>                                    207,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,481,200
<PP&E>                                      30,948,500
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,770,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,782,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,419,300
<BONDS>                                      4,439,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       588,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,694,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,782,900
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,567,400
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,745,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (50,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                80,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             123,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                748,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   270,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            478,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   478,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43<F4>
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B). WE HAVE INCLUDED
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUE" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 
IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER REGULATION
S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
<F4>WE HAVE CALCULATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAS
128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE." WE HAVE ENTERED BASIC AND DILUTED AMOUNTS IN PLACE
OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY, AND REFLECT THE TWO-FOR-ONE
STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
REC-- 120 551-70 Page 1 of 1

LEGAL PROCESSING .

PUBLIC. 'SSING DIVISION
mr at ae

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80edd1 fd

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0055
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: William Dean Wilcox
Address:

3006 Woodmanor Ct.

Ann Arbor, MI, 48108
Email: wdwilcox@umich.edu
Phone: 734 764-2434

General Comment

I strongly encourage HHS to impliment broadened religious exemptions concerning not
contraception in this legislation. In addition rights of conscience should be expanded

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/31/2011
Exhibit 11

                       Computation of Net Income Per Share
               (In thousands, except share and earnings per share)


                                                      For the Quarter Ended
                                                      ---------------------
                                                  June 30, 1999   June 30, 1998
                                                  -------------   -------------
Net Income Per Share - Basic
----------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock               $  343,000     $  175,000

Weighted average common shares                       1,895,619      2,026,670

Earnings per common share                           $     0.18     $     0.09


Net Income Per Share - Diluted
------------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock               $  343,000     $  175,000

Weighted average common shares                       1,895,619      2,026,670

Dilutive common stock options                           16,273         37,089
                                                    ----------     ----------

Weighted average common shares - diluted             1,911,892      2,063,759

Earnings per common share                           $     0.18     $     0.08


                                                      For the Six Months Ended
                                                      ------------------------
                                                   June 30, 1999   June 30, 1998
                                                   -------------   -------------

Net Income Per Share - Basic
----------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock               $  636,000     $  397,000

Weighted average common shares                       1,910,956      2,051,911

Earnings per common share                           $     0.33     $     0.20




                                       15
<PAGE>



Net Income Per Share - Diluted
------------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock               $  636,000     $  397,000

Weighted average common shares                       1,910,956      2,051,911

Dilutive common stock options                           14,441         19,060
                                                    ----------     ----------
Weighted average common shares - diluted             1,925,397      2,070,971

Earnings per common share                           $     0.33     $     0.19


(1) Dilutive common stock options (includes restricted stock under the Company's
ISAP plan and options under its stock option plan) are based on the treasury
stock method using average market price. The treasury stock method recognizes
the use of assumed proceeds upon the exercise of option, and the amount of
unearned compensation attributed to future services under the Company's
restricted stock plan, including any tax benefits, will be used to purchase the
Company's common stock at the average market price during the period.


                                       16
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Anthony S Woods, Appellant, v. The Police Commissioners of Long Island City and others, Respondents.

Order refusing *mandamus*affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
From: menucha65

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Don"t expand existing religious refusal exemptions re: preventive care and contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:21:16 PM

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

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sincerely, menucha65
From: phaynes@nieco.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:46:55 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,

Pamela Haynes

Santa Rosa, CA 95403
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 (0.12 MB)
 
 Last night parliament granted approval for the UK to extend their airstrikes to include Syria as well as Iraq as part of counter-Daesh coalition operations. Within hours Royal Air Force Tornados flew their first offensive operation on terrorist targets inside Syria.
 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1998
<CASH>                                           3,305
<SECURITIES>                                     3,947
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (468)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,036
<PP&E>                                          14,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                         8,708
<OTHER-SE>                                          55
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,331
<SALES>                                         21,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,852
<CGS>                                           14,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (485)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,286
<INCOME-TAX>                                       455
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                831
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       831
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3121

_____________________________ C HARLES G WIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. Mc C allum , Judge

. March 12, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Charles Gwin, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          28,646
<SECURITIES>                                     2,406
<RECEIVABLES>                                  936,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,070
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,839
<PP&E>                                          19,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,044,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,836
<BONDS>                                        835,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           190
<OTHER-SE>                                     159,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,044,802
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,455
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,582)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,014)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,568)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)


</TABLE>
Hillsborough,)

Oct. 1,1912.

#### Parker *v.*Mudgett.

In an action for negligence against an employer, certain evidence deemed sufficient to warrant the finding that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the negligence of a fellow-servant whose incompetency was, or ought to have been, known to the defendant.

Case, for personal injuries. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the January term, 1912, of the superior court by *Pike,*J., on the defendant’s exceptions to the denial of motions for a nonsuit and the direction of a verdict in his favor.

The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove the following facts: October 18, 1907, the plaintiff, who had previously been employed as a chopper, was set at work taking away boards from the carriage of the defendant’s sawmill. One Ouillette was the sawyer. On the afternoon of the first day of this employment, a glove on the plaintiff’s right hand became entangled in the machinery, and when the carriage started to return to the saw the plaintiff was dragged with it. When he was fifteen or twenty feet from the *495saw he shouted to Ouillette to shut off the power, but this the latter failed to do, and the plaintiff was dragged against the moving saw and suffered the loss of his right arm. The speed of the carriage was such that it could have been stopped in a distance of six inches. Ouillette was incapable of acting with reasonable prudence in case of emergency, and this fact was known to the defendant.

*John M. Stark, Arthur S. Healy,*and *Martin & Howe {Mr. Howe*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren {Robert L. Manning*orally), for the defendant.

Bingham, J.

Aside from the question of the plaintiff’s exercise of care, it was incumbent upon him to prove (1) that his injury was due to some negligent act or omission of Ouillette, (2) that Ouillette was an incompetent man for the service he was called upon to render, and (3) that his incompetency was, or ought to have been, known to the defendant.

There was evidence from which all three of these propositions could have been found. It appeared that after the plaintiff was caught upon the carriage Ouillette had a clear opportunity to stop the machine and prevent the accident, which he failed to do; that he was a “jumping Frenchman” — a person afflicted with a nervous disability which rendered him incapable of exercising care in case of an emergency or when under excitement — and that this disability was, or ought to have been, known by the defendant. The particular evidence upon the last proposition was that at the time of the accident Ouillette had been in the defendant’s employ as a sawyer for over three months; that the men at the mill, during the noon hour, were in the habit of getting Ouillette excited by hallooing and pointing at him, so that they might see him jump; and that on one of these occasions the defendant told them not to do so, as some of them were liable to get hurt. The order is,

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.