alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

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 

HomeMEDIANEWS ARTICLESNews Article View

# Esper lists DOD's top priorities during COVID-19 pandemic

By David VergunDefense News

                WASHINGTON  –              

                Aviation Boatswain's Mate Handling 1st Class Robin Lewis practices preventative actions by cleaning a counter space in the Administrative area at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Hampton Roads, during the coronavirus outbreak. NSA Hampton Roads personnel cleaned their work areas to continue to help stop the spread of germs and illnesses like the flu and the coronavirus. (U.S. Navy photo by Katisha Draughn-Fraguada/Released)            

                COVID-19 response            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Katisha Draughn-Fraguada

VIRIN: 200310-N-UA321-103

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
From: kevinhanford@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:03 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,

Kevin Hanford

Monroe, WA 98272
From: phatcats1@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:07 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,

Ron Douglas

Arlington Heights, IL 60005
REC- 120 841-70

Page 1 of 1

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
AS As of: August 31, 2011
PUBLICATION & REGUL AT IONS Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee184f

‘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-2010-0017-0077
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Paige Garberding
Address:

18314 Sunnyside Ave N

Shoreline, WA, 98133-4628
Email: paijleel@comcast.net
Phone: 206-624-8105
Submitter's Representative: Jay Inslee
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HHS

General Comment

Empowering women to choose their own reproductive schedule results in healthier women,
children, families, communities, and ultimately in a healthier society. The availability of universal
contraceptives at no cost is the best way to accomplish that goal. Thank you for basing your
decision on science.

http://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/31/2011
Exhibit 10.2

 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240-24b-2

 

Statement of Work

 

To the Agreement between RADIUS HEALTH, INC. (“RADIUS”) and LONZA Sales AG dated 16 of October 2007

 

Supplemental analytical services

 


	
Number
    	
 
    	
RDS-001-SC004
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Product Code/Name
    	
 
    	
RDS-001 Abaloparatide
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Description of the proposed change:
    	
 
    	
Supplemental services requested by Radius:

1)             Manufacturing of an   RS solution and supply of 60 vials to Vetter

2)             Additional LC-MS   analysis (M-076-RDS-001) and reissue a new CoA of batch 2AN1.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Price Agreed
    	
 
    	
1.              [*]€

2.              [*]€

 

Total: [*]€
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Radius
    	
 
    	
Name: Naveen Palwai
    
   Signature: /s/ Naveen Palwai
    	
 
    	
Date : 11 Mar 2016
    
	
Radius
    	
 
    	
Name:            Wajiha Khan
   David Hanley



Signature: /s/ David   Hanley
    	
 
    	
Date : 11 Mar 2016
    
	
Lonza Sales AG
    	
 
    	
Name : Paul Tastenhoye



Signature : /s/ Paul Tastenhoye
    	
 
    	
Date: 11/03/2016
    
	
Lonza Sales AG
    	
 
    	
Name : Frederique Mutterer



Signature : /s/ Frederique Mutterer
    	
 
    	
Date : 11/03/16
    




 

Additional notes: /

 




[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

1











 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240-24b-2

 

Detailed description of the proposed change

 

Activity 1: Manufacturing of an RS solution and supply of 60 vials to Vetter. Radius to communicate which reference standard is to be used for this liquid reference solution.

 

Activity 2: Additional LC-MS analysis (M-076-RDS-001) and reissue a new CoA of batch 2AN1.

 

Timescale

 

Activity 1: By mid-May

 

Activity 2: By March 25th (prior to NDA filing)

 

Price and Terms of Payment

 

1.                  Price

 

·                  Activity 1: [*]€

·                  Activity 2: [*]€

·                  Total price: [*]€

 

2.      Payment

 

100% upon completion

 

oooOOOooo

 




[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

2
EXHIBIT 32.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Matthiessen, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 result of operations of the Company.
Date:	May 12, 2006

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
[Crim. No. 357.

Fourth Appellate District.

February 23, 1938.]

#### In the Matter of the Application of HARRY HERRICK for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Martin J. Coughlin for Petitioner.

H. R. Griffin and Stanley Mussell for Respondent.

THE COURT.

The petitioner seeks his release from confinement mider the charge of violating the provisions of ordinance No. 1597 of the city of San Bernardino. That ordinance purports to adopt a code of fair competition for the cleaning and dyeing industry in that city, and was passed pursuant to an act of the state legislature relating to the adoption of such codes. (Chap. 396, Stats. 1937, p. 1215.) The ordinance recites that such code is thereby set up for the purpose of “increasing employment, establishing fair and adequate wages, effecting necessary reduction of hours, improving the standards of labor, and to eliminate unfair trade practices and ruinous price cutting evils to the end of rehabilitating the Cleaning and Dyeing Industry in the City of San Bernardino, and enable it to do its part toward es*752tablishing that balance of industries which is necessary to the restoration and maintenance of the highest practical degree of public welfare”. The ordinance fixes a minimum price for various services to be performed by persons engaged in that industry, including a minimum price for cleaning and pressing a man’s suit. It makes a violation thereof a misdemeanor punishable by fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment in the city jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The petitioner was arrested and taken into custody on a charge of. violating this ordinance by cleaning and pressing a man’s suit of clothes for a sum of money less than that fixed as the minimum price by the code thus established. This proceeding followed.

In *In re Kasas,*22 Cal. App. (2d) 161 [70 Pac. (2d) 962], this court considered a similar ordinance establishing a minimum price for various forms of barber services, although the ordinance there in question had been passed pursuant to a different act of the legislature. In so far as principles are concerned we are unable to distinguish that case from the one now before us. The material facts in both cases are essentially similar and the questions of law involved are, in substantial effect, identical. Those questions were fully considered in the case referred to, most of the reasoning there used is applicable here and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat the same. The decision in that case was followed by *In re Landowitz,*22 Cal. App. (2d) 733 [71 Pac. (2d) 334]. Upon the authority of those cases, and for the reasons set forth in the first of them, the petitioner is discharged and his bail exonerated.

A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 25, 1938.
From: Cherie Mooy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Eliminate religious refusal exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:06:21 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.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #18147 and #18148; Georgia Disaster Number GA-00161]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4738-DR), dated 09/09/2023. *Incident:*
                         Hurricane Idalia. *Incident Period:*
                         08/30/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 09/09/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/08/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/10/2024.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/09/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Berrien, Brantley, Brooks, Bulloch, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee, Colquitt, Cook, Echols, Emanuel, Glynn, Jeff Davis, Jenkins, Lanier, Lowndes, Pierce, Screven, Tattnall, Thomas, Tift, Ware, Wayne. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18147 8 and for economic injury is 18148 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2023-19978 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

 

I, JosephSaunders, President and Chief Executive Officer of Providian FinancialCorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated: November 14, 2002

 

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Joseph  Saunders                   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   | Joseph  Saunders                       |
|   |   |   |   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
From: Joy Welan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for women

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 4:39:16 AM

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 women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term health

care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

To ensure that all women are able to access these important health services, please reconsider the

exemption for religious employers.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Joy Welan

565 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Apt. 804

Washington, DC 20001
#### BERTHA SELLERT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN SELLERT, DECEASED, RESPONDENT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted May term, 1933

Decided October 19, 1933.

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Perskie.

Por the appellant, Perkins, *Hrewen <& Nugent.*

*865For the respondent, *Isaac W. Seiler {Maurice O. Brigadier,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

This ease is to recover double insurance by reason of alleged accidental death. There was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the insurance company appeals.

The grounds urged for reversal are that there were no proofs of death made in compliance with the terms of the policy of insurance, and that there was no adequate proof that the insured came to his death from accidental causes apart from all others.

John Sellert had a policy of insurance with the Metropolitan Company upon which the face of the insurance would be paid if death were due to natural causes, but if death were due to “bodily injuries solely through external, violent, and accidental means * * * the company will pay in addition to any other sums due under the policy * * * an accidental death benefit equal to the face amount of insurance.”

The history of the case discloses that Sellert was either taken sick or injured on January 6th, 1930, and died on February 17th following. After the death the proofs of loss indicating disease as the cause of death were presented and the company paid the straight amount of the policy. A few months later an additional claim was made against the company for the death benefit due to death from accidental causes. The company refusing payment, the present suit was instituted.

The proofs of loss comprise a number of affidavits from which it appears that on the morning of January 6th, 1930, a fall was heard in the hallway of the house of the deceased, and later in the morning the deceased was found unconscious lying on the cellar floor near the steps. There were marks on his face, head and body, his mouth and nose were filled with blood and his hip was injured. All of this tended of course to indicate that there had been a fall and presumably that this was due to accident. When the trial came on substantially the same proofs were presented in the form of tes*866timony of the witnesses with additional proof of a fracture of the skull coming from the defendant’s medical expert. Against this the company offered the earlier proofs of loss. They also produced medical testimony tending to show that the death was due to natural causes and not to injury.

A fair question of fact was thus presented to the jury on both questions. We have had other cases quite similar as to the sufficiency of evidence in this class of cases, the most recent being *Runyan*v. *Commonwealth Casualty Co.,*9 *N. J. Mis. R.*487; 154 *Atl. Rep.*397, where it was held that proofs no stronger required submission to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.