alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Lacy, Respondent, v. Sophronia A. Getman, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.— Opinion by

Kennedy, J.;

memorandum by

Hardin, P. J.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David A. Kindlick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
 
 
 /s/ David A. Kindlick
 
 Name: David A. Kindlick
 Title: Chief Financial Officer
 May 9, 2011
No. 191, Misc.

#### Harrelson *v.*North Carolina.

Supreme Court of North Carolina. Certiorari denied.
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Crestline

Redlands
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
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (5.55 MB)
 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
No. 176.

#### Benson *v.*Illinois.

*Harry G. Fins*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
From: melw25@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:39 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,

Mel Wiggins

Manassas, VA 20111
From: marian.nishi@ca.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:59:22 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,

Marian Nishi

Cypress, CA 90630
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.18


                                DELOITTE & TOUCH


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants of Trinet Investments In High-Tech Ltd., we
hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 11, 2002, included
in Form 10-K of Ampal-American Israel Corporation for the year ended December
31, 2001 (relating to the financial statements of Trinet Investments In
High-Tech Ltd. not included herein), into AmpaI-American Israel Corporation's
previously filed Registration Statements No. 33361895 and No. 333-55970.


                                 Brightman, Almagor & Co.
                               Certified Public Accountants

March 21, 2002




                                       18
#### The People of the State of New York v. Richard Warren.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J. not sitting.
No. 326, Misc.

#### DeLevay *v.*National Savings & Trust Co.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Arthur P. Drury, John M. Lynham, John E. Powell*and *Henry H. Paige*for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
**FW: DOT concurrence for Transportation Conformity Restructuring**  **Camille.Mittelholtz** to : Meg Patulski, Leila Cook Cc : Cecilia.Ho, Helen.Serassio, adam.stephenson, Linda.Lawson

From: <Camille.Mittelholtz@dot.gov> To: Meg Patulski/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Leila Cook/AA/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: <Cecilia.Ho@dot.gov>, <Helen.Serassio@dot.gov>, <adam.stephenson@dot.gov>, <Linda.Lawson@dot.gov> restructure final concur_7_18_11.pdf Attached is a copy of the DOT concurrence in the Transportation Conformity Restructuring rule, signed in July 2011. We have reviewed the rule and preamble that includes announcement that EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposal that are as analyze a near - term analysis year when using the budget test. The prior DOT concurrence remains valid for this update. Camille Mittelholtz Deputy Director, Office of Safety, Energy and Environment Office of the Secretary of Transportation/Office of Transportation Policy 202 366 -4861
No. 407.

#### Humphrey et al. *v.*Moore et al.

*H. Solomon Horen*and *Mozart G. Ratner*for petitioners.

*John Y. Broion*for Moore et al., and *Newell N. Fowler*for Dealers Transport Co., respondents.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Certiorari granted.
From: okhjalb@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Choice

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:26:05 PM

Why should an employer have the right to make contraception decisions for another?

What kind of freedom is that?

It's another ploy for the put down of women in general. Let's put a STOP to this NOW!
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

miniteb ~tate9' (!Court of §ppeaI9' 

for tbe jf eberaI (!Circuit 

STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 

Appellant, 

v. 

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

(SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF ROCKWELL 

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION), 

Appellee. 

--------.--------------------------------------------- -----~-------

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

(Successor-in-Interest of Rockwell International 

Corporation), 

Appellant, 

v. 

STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 

Appellee. 

2011·1304, -1317 

Appeals from the Armed Services Board of Contract 

Appeals in nos. 337, 338, 339, and 978, Administrative 

Judge R. Anthony McCann. 
ENERGY v. BOEING CO 2 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

The Boeing Company moves for a 60-day extension of 

time, until March 9, 2012, to file its reply brief. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

JAN 092012 

Date 

cc: Domenique Kirchner, Esq 

Richard J. Ney, Esq. 

s21 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbal1 

Clerk 

FILED 

u.s. COURT OF APPEAlS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

JAN 0 9 2012 

JAN HORBAlY 

CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference 
through the Microsoft Teams Platform.

DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, October 23, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 
214-413-6550.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Monday, October 23, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via 
teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. For more information, please 
contact Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6550, or write 
TAP Office, 1114 Commerce St., MC 1005, Dallas, TX 75242 or contact us 
at the website: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include the potential project referrals from the 
committees, and discussions on priorities the TAP will focus on for the 
2023 year. Public input is welcomed.

    Dated: September 6, 2023.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2023-19751 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
From: Sarah Boston

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Refusal of Health Services

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:58:10 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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60124

Summary Calendar

 

JACQUELINE PRUETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOYCE P. DUMAS, DAN CAMP, BILL WEEKS,

CATHERINE JONES, and DEBRA HICKS, individually,

and in their official capacities as members of the

Board of Trustees of the Starkville Mun. Separate

Sch. Dist.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-83-S-D

- - - - - - - - - -

September 11, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

Jacqueline Pruett appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment for the defendants. Pruett contends

that the defendants violated her substantive and procedural due

process rights in suspending her employment as a public school

teacher and in refusing to renew her annual contract. We have

carefully reviewed the briefs and the record. Essentially for
No. 96-60124

- 2 -

reasons stated by the district court, we hold that the district

court did not err in granting summary judgment for the

defendants. See Pruett v. Dumas, 914 F. Supp. 133 (N.D. Miss.

1996). 

AFFIRMED.
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
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.6 MB)
 
 Fuels Lab 379th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron ANG POL Air National Guard Al Udeid lab Pennsylvania
 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
From: hamlonj@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:20:11 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,

John Hamlon

Lincoln, CA 95648
No. 236, Misc.

#### Aaron *v.*Alabama.

*Fred D. Gray*for petitioner.

*MacDonald Gallion,*Attorney General of Ala-

bama, *George D. Mentz,*Assistant Attorney General, and *William F. Thetford*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Alabama. Certiorari denied.
From: glass4him@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:25 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,

Sue Ubertini

Beach Lake, PA 18405
#### Martha Albert, Respondent, v. The President, etc., of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with cosls. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J ;

Follett, J.. not sitting.