alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                            




                              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
Pacific Telesis Group as follows:

Form  S-3: PacTel Capital  Resources  $500,000,000 Debt Securities and Guarantee
           thereof by Pacific Telesis Group

Form  S-3:  Secondary Offering of 137,504 shares of Pacific Telesis Group Common
            Stock

Form  S-3: Shareowner Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan

Form  S-3:  Pacific Telesis Group and Pacific Telesis  Financing I, II, and III,
      $1 billion of Trusts' Preferred Securities and Other Securities

Form  S-4: ABI American Businessphones, Inc. Merger

Form  S-4: SBC Communications Inc. Merger

Form  S-8: Nonemployee Director Stock Option Plan

Form  S-8: Supplemental Retirement and Savings Plan for Salaried Employees 

Form  S-8: Supplemental Retirement and Savings Plan for Nonsalaried Employees

Form  S-8: Stock Option and Stock Appreciation Rights Plan

Form  S-8: PacTel Corporation Retirement Plan

Form  S-8: Stock Incentive Plan

of our reports dated May 17, 1996 on our audits of the  financial  statements of
the Pacific Telesis Group Supplemental  Retirement and Savings Plan for Salaried
Employees,  Pacific Telesis Group  Supplemental  Retirement and Savings Plan for
Nonsalaried Employees,  filed as part of Exhibits 99a and 99b, respectively,  to
the  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  Pacific  Telesis  Group for the year  ended
December 31, 1995.






San Francisco, California
June  30, 1997



<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7189

ELIJAH E. PACHECO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HEATHER WARREN, Magistrate,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:23-cv-00153-MR)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah E. Pacheco, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7189 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Elijah E. Pacheco, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pacheco has not 

made the requisite showing. Pacheco does not challenge on appeal the district court’s 

dispositive determination that he failed to exhaust state remedies, and we find that Pacheco

has not engaged in one complete round of North Carolina’s appellate review process. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7189 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
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
  (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Dated: November 12, 2010
    /s/ Robert A. OrtenzioRobert A. OrtenzioChief Executive Officer/s/ Martin F. JacksonMartin F. JacksonExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDWARD DAVIS, 

 

 Appellant.

v.

THE CITY OF EL PASO, ONE GAS 

INC. DBA TEXAS GAS SERVICE, INC., 

MARTINEZ BROS. LANDSCAPING, 

LLC DBA MB KEYSTONE 

CONTRACTORS, AND WESTSIDE 

WELDING, INC., 

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 

No. 08-21-00194-CV

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2019DCV2406)

ORDER FOR MEDIATION REFERRAL

The Court has determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation pursuant to 

TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 154.021, et seq., and ORDERS this case referred to mediation. 

Any objection to this order must be filed with this Court and served upon all parties within ten (10) 

days of the date of this order. An objection untimely filed may be considered waived. 

The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall, within twenty (20) days of this order, or 

within ten (10) days of an adverse ruling on an objection, confer and attempt to agree upon a mediator 

qualified under TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. §154.052. The parties shall notify the Court of
2

the name, address, telephone and fax number of the mediator. If the parties are unable to agree upon 

a qualified mediator, the parties are directed to immediately notify the Court in writing, and upon 

receipt, the Court will enter an order reestablishing the appellate timetable. 

The Court further ORDERS that the mediation be held within sixty (60) days of this order 

and that the appellate timetable be suspended during such time. All parties or their representative 

with full settlement authority shall attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. The 

mediator and parties shall file a report of the completion of mediation within forty-eight (48) hours 

of the conclusion of mediation advising the court of:

• full, partial, or no resolution of the case;

• whether further negotiations are planned; and 

• compensation paid to the mediator and by whom.

In the event no further negotiations are planned and there is no resolution, or a partial 

resolution of the case occurs, the parties will file a motion with this Court requesting that the Court 

issue an order reestablishing the appellate timetable. This motion will accompany the abovementioned forty-eight (48) hours report.

The Court further ORDERS, in the event of full resolution of the issues in this case, that 

the parties file a joint dispositive motion within ten (10) days of the conclusion of mediation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
From: Ann Crockett

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Unfair to Women per usual!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:20:44 PM

Do not crumble to the heavy handed religious lobbies to eliminate the possibility of birth control for all

women working anywhere. None of them give a hoot for the damaged or unwanted/unneeded babies

born in our country today. Make our country stronger by making our females and their babies planned

and stronger!
From: Dinda Evans

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventative care is important

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:05:56 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.
Docket Number FAA-2013-1026
From: branchlee@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to preventive care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:11:23 AM

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

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

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

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

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

necessary health care.

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

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

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

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

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

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

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

thousands of women just because of where they work.

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

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sandra Brancheau,

AAUW Member
#### Roxana C. Larkins, Respondent, v. Paul C. Maxon, as Administrator, etc., Appellant.

Motion denied. Followed *Miller*v. *Miller*(32 Hun, 481).
| **CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY (Parenthetical) - $ / shares** | 12 Months Ended |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                              |            |   |   |
| DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE (in dollars per share)                           | $ 3.04          | $ 2.87 | $ 2.70 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends declared during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareDeclared**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Page 1 of 2

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION MEGHSU2ZAC
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS AEE i/ (/ O AUG 2 6 2019
B

As of: August 26, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted,

Posted: August 26, 2010
SUBMISSION Comments Duet August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0010-0001
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-2010-0010-0414
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

—
Submitter Information
Name: Irene Louise Webster
Address:
Lafayette Hill, PA, United States Minor Outlying Islands,
—

General Comment

11. August 2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-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-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the 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 (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans shoulc not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed commen:s
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

http://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 8/26/2010



Page 2 of 2

Irene Webster

http://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 8/26/2010
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
  Clear Search
 
  FIRST

        

        

        
        1 (current)
        
        2
        
        3
        
        4
        

        


        


        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
Exhibit 10.6A
                          AMEDMENT
                             TO
                      CONTROL AGREEMENT

     WHEREAS, Apothekernes Laboratorium AS (now known as
A.L. Industrier AS), a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the Kingdom of Norway (A.L. Oslo), and
A.L. Laboratories Inc. (now known as Alpharma Inc.), a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), are parties to a
Control Agreement dated as of February 7, 1986, as
previously amended (the "Control Agreement"), pursuant to
which A.L. Oslo irrevocably agreed that, prior to November
1, 1997 (the "Termination Date"), it would not sell or
otherwise dispose of the shares of the Company's Class B
Common Stock (the "Class B Stock") that it owns or exchange
or convert any of such shares into the Company's Class A
Common Stock ("Class A Stock").

     WHEREAS, A.L. Oslo and the Company desire to amend the
Control Agreement to extend the Termination Date to November
1, 1999 and to permit A.L. Oslo to pledge, in a bona fide
transaction, up to 5,000,000 shares of the Class B Stock
that it owns.

     NOW, THEREFORE, A.L. Oslo hereby agrees irrevocably
that prior to November 1, 1999 it will not sell or otherwise
dispose of any shares of Class B Stock that it now or at any
time owns or exchange or convert any shares of Class B Stock
that it now or at any time owns into Class A Stock;
provided, however, that A.L. Oslo may pledge, in a bona fide
transaction, up to 5,000,000 shares of the Class B Stock
that it now or at any time owns (but in no event more than
50% of its shares).

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, A.L. Oslo has duly executed and
delivered this Control Agreement as of this 19th day of
December 1996.


                              A.L. INDUSTRIER AS
                              (formerly known as
                              Apothekernes Laboratorium AS)



By:________________________


Agreed to and accepted as of
December 30, 1996

ALPHARMA INC.
(formerly known as
A.L. Laboratories, Inc.)

By:__________________________
Its:__________________________
From: Althage, Craig

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: to reject any exemptions for "religious employers

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:53:10 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

Craig Lyndon Althage.

______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 

______________________________________________________________________
From: Lori Pence Barber

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: women’s preventive health care be completely covered by any new health insurance plans under the new

health care reform law!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:42:51 AM

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

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

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

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

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

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work. I urge you to ensure women have access to quality

preventive care by accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed

religious refusal exemption provisions.

This is why church and state is seperate. We also need to keep church out of our

medical plans where we work.

Lori Pence Barber
From: Gerry Brundage

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Stop this

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:25:27 PM

Stop making good people complicit in your culture of death. Pregnancy is a blessing and not a

disease. The choice to chemically alter ones body to prevent normal reproductive operation is no

different than the use of chemicals to alter ones body to seek pleasure in alcohol or drug abuse. We

know that impact that these abuses on society. NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the Pharmaceutical

Companies are driving this and they don't care about the impact on Society.

This is a travesty.