alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of JournalRegister Company (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form10-Q for the period ended March  26,  2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), we, Robert M.Jelenic,  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Julie A. Beck, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

/s/ RobertM.  JelenicRobert M.  JelenicChairman andChief Executive OfficerMay 5, 2006

/s/Julie A. BeckJulie A. BeckSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer May 5, 2006

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’), orincorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as may be expressly setforth by specific reference in any such filing. A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to JournalRegister Company and will be retained by Journal Register Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD SPENCE ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KELLY SANTORO , et al.,

Defendant s
- Appellee s

. No. 1 9

- 15 898

D.C. No. 1:18

- cv
- 01363

- LJO

- SAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE , CANBY , and TASHIMA , Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Gerald Spence appeals pro se from the district

cou rt’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his safety and serious medical needs

. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de nov o the district court’s dismissal under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15898

U.S.C. § § 191 5 (e) (2)(B)(ii) and 1915A

. Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112
(9 t h Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) ; Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9 th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915A)

. We

affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Spence’s action because Spence failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a ny plausible claim s

. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627
F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed
liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833

- 34 (1994) (setting

forth elements of a failure

- to

- protect claim); Maxwell v. County of San Diego , 708
F.3d 1075, 1097 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]here is no respondeat superior liability under
§ 1983.”); Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

- 58 (9th Cir. 2004) ( setting forth

elements of a medical deliberate indifference claim)

. We reject as meritless Spence’s contention that the district court applied a

“ different ” pleading standard to his claims.
Spence’s “ Request for Certificate of Appealability ” is denied as

unnecessary

.
AFFIRMED.
From: betsyj0708@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:38 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,

Elizabeth Jacquez

Cincinnati, OH 45212
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
  FIRST

        

        

        
        4
        
        5
        
        6 (current)
        
        7
        
        8
        

        


        


        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
### Rail Vehicles A**ccess A dvisory**  **Committee Meeting #1**  **November 13 and 14, 2013 Preliminary** 

**A genda**  **U.S. A ccess Board Conference Room**  **1331 F Street, N.W., suite 800 Washington, DC**  **20004 Wednesday**  **, November**  **13 (**  **10:00 a.m. –**  **5:00 p.m. )**  1. We lcome 2. Overview of Committee Charter ( Purpose ) and Rulemaking Process 3. F ederal Advisory Committee Act Overview 4. Review and Approval of Protocols 5. Potential New Membership

– Committee Vote 6. Establish Future Meeting Dates 7. Review of Current Rail G uidelines and Establish Committee Priorities 8. Public Comment Period **Thursday ,**  **November 14**  **( 9:00 a.m.**  **- 3**  **:00 p.m. )**  1. Committee W ork 2. Administration 3. New Business 4. Public Comment Period 5. Adjourn **Note:** Lunch will be on your own at a time each day favorable to the Committee work

.
The survey instrument will collect limited demographic information, numeric rating to 

satisfaction-related questions, and an open-ended response.

1. Would you describe yourself as a ____________?

a. Current student 

b. Prospective/future student 

c. Former student 

d. Parent or guardian of student 

e. Congressional office 

f. Other

2. Was the response you received clear and easy to understand? 

a. Yes 

b. No

3. Was the response you received helpful? 

a. Very helpful 

b. Somewhat helpful 

c. Not helpful

4. Were you satisfied that all of your concerns were addressed in the response you 

received? 

a. Very satisfied 

b. Somewhat satisfied

c. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

d. Somewhat dissatisfied

e. Very dissatisfied 

5. How long did it take for you to receive your response? 

a. 1 to 2 weeks

b. 3 to 4 weeks

c. 5 to 6 weeks

d. More then 6 weeks

6. Where did you find our contact information?

a. Department of Education Web site

b. Department of Education Publication

c. School Web site

d. School publication or letter

e. Federal Student Aid Information Center (calling 1-800-4-FED-AID)

f. Other

7. What could the Federal Student Aid Correspondence Unit do to improve its 

service? 

a. Open-ended
Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless 

such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 

1845-0045. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average one minute per response, 

including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the 

information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for 

improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4700. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Kwaku 

Appiah, U.S. Department of Education, UCP 31F4, Washington, D.C. 20202.
Exhibit 10.3.1
 CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.
2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 Purposes of the Plan
 Definitions




---



##### 



The Wall Street Journal
             2




---



##### 



3. Stock Subject to the Plan.
    Administration of the Plan
     3




---



##### 



provided
      4




---



##### 



Eligibility
   Term of Plan
 Terms of Options
 provided
    5




---



##### 



Exercise of Option
    6




---



##### 



Termination of Relationship as a Service Provider
 Termination
 Disability of Optionee
 Death of Employee Participant
 Death of Consultant or Outside Director Service Provider
  7




---



##### 



Buyout Provisions
 Formula Grants to Outside Directors
 Initial Grants
   Annual Grants and Awards
 provided
 provided
 provided
 8




---



##### 



Terms of Options
      provided, however
 Non-Transferability of Awards
 Other Stock Awards
 Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization, Merger or Asset Sale
 9




---



##### 



Changes in Capitalization
 Dissolution or Liquidation
 Merger or Asset Sale provided
 10




---



##### 



Amendment and Termination of the Plan
 Amendment and Termination
 Stockholder Approval
 Effect of Amendment or Termination
 Conditions Upon Issuance of Shares
 Legal Compliance
 Tax Withholding
 Inability to Obtain Authority
 Stockholder Approval
 11
<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 six months ended June 30, 1999 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>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                               5,737
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      124,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,919
<INVENTORY>                                         35,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   181,684
<PP&E>                                             240,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                      90,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     517,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               79,183
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               507
<OTHER-SE>                                         235,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       517,181
<SALES>                                            334,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   334,953
<CGS>                                              248,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      248,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     43,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15,794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 27,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        27,852
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.54



</TABLE>
From: waynesdavis@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:17:40 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,

Wayne Davis

Saint Louis, MO 63119
----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Page 1 of 1

'1<6G- )Ir Lf I;) -/ G 

As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2cc2d 

Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 

PUBLICATION &. REGULATIONS 

BRANCH 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-000l 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-201O-001O-0254 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

-------------------------------------------------------------,--­

Submitter Information 

Name: MARTIN JAMES JOEPECK 

Address: 

6716A HILLSIDE LANE 

WAUWATOSA, WI, 53213 

Email: mjjoepeck@yahoo.com 

Phone: 414-545-5433 

Fax: 414-545-6757 

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0254.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency Icomponentl submitterInfoCoverPage?Call =... 8/20/201 0 
Date: 8/9/2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status 

as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2Ot 0­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PP ACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation ofthese 

regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Martin 1. Joepeck, D.C. 

6716A Hillside Lane 

Wauwatosa, WI 53213 

Phone: 414-545-5433
From: Marian Cooley

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Service for all Women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:48:54 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.” This is 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 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.

Marian Cooley

Muncie, IN
# U.S. Bombers Operate In CENTCOM

/ Published Dec. 10, 2020
SOUTHWEST ASIA, 
A pair of U.S. Air Force B-52H "Stratofortresses" assigned to the Barksdale Air Force Base-headquartered 2nd Bomb Wing operated in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility with other U.S. Air Force and regional partner aircraft in the second mission in as many months.                A B-52H Stratofortress departs for a long-range training mission at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., Dec. 9, 2020. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Lillian Miller)                            U.S. Bombers Operate In CENTCOM                            A B-52H Stratofortress departs for a long-range training mission at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., Dec. 9, 2020. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Lillian Miller)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Senior Airman Lillian MillerVIRIN: 201209-D-D0477-020B

The short-notice, non-stop mission was designed to underscore the U.S. military’s commitment to its regional partners, while also validating the ability to rapidly deploy combat power anywhere in the world, said the senior commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

"The ability to fly strategic bombers halfway across the world in a non-stop mission, and to rapidly integrate them with multiple regional partners demonstrates our close working relationships and our shared commitment to regional security and stability," said U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) commander, Gen. Frank McKenzie.

While assuring allies and partners, the mission was also designed to deter aggression.

"Potential adversaries should understand that no nation on earth is more ready and capable of rapidly deploying additional combat power in the face of any aggression," said McKenzie.

"Our ability to work together as partners on a mission like this heightens our collective readiness to respond to any crisis or contingency."

The U.S. Air Force routinely flies a variety of aircraft and units throughout the Middle East, which is one way that CENTCOM promotes regional security. Temporary long-range bomber deployments into the region can be traced back to at least 2015.

Aircrews use transponders and operate in conformity with international law, including with due regard for the safety of navigation of aircraft during every flight, and coordinate with relevant nations.

"We do not seek conflict," McKenzie said, "but we must remain postured and committed to respond to any contingency or in opposition to any aggression."

Images