alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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  Home
  MEDIA
  NEWS ARTICLES
  News Article View
 Download
 Details
 Share
 Download
 Details
 Share
 Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 Readout of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Milley’s Meeting with Jordanian Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Maj. Gen. Yousef Huneiti Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Public Affairs
 Nov. 25, 2019  WASHINGTON--Joint Staff Spokesperson Col. DeDe S. Halfhill provided the following readout: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley met with Jordanian Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Maj. Gen. Yousef Huneiti yesterday in Amman, Jordan. The two leaders discussed several issues of mutual concern in the Middle East and the broader regional security situation. Gen. Milley affirmed the U.S. commitment to its strategic security relationship with Jordan in facing regional and global challenges. The U.S. and Jordan share a strong military-to-military relationship as key partners committed to peace and security in the Middle East region.  For more Joint Staff news, visit: www.jcs.mil.
Connect with the Joint Staff on social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube,LinkedIn and Flickr.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 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
Order entered July 31, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00362 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 0036 3 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 0036 4 - CR JOHN F. SEAY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17 - 44837 - P , F17 - 44838 - P & F17 - 44846 - P 

### O RDER On May 2, 2019, we ordered appellant to file his brief by May 31, 2019. We cautioned appellant that the failure to do so would result in these cases being submitted without appellant’s briefs. To date, appellant has not filed a brief nor has he communicated with the Court regarding the appeals. We ORDER these appeals submitted without appellant’s brief. An opinio n will issue in due course. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1432 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1432

To authorize the issuance of United States Defense of Freedom Bonds to 
  aid in funding of the war against terrorism, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2001

Mr. Smith of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
  and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the issuance of United States Defense of Freedom Bonds to 
  aid in funding of the war against terrorism, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``United States Defense of Freedom 
Bond Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to authorize the issuance of United 
States Defense of Freedom Bonds to aid in the funding of the war 
against terrorism, as defined by the President.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DEFENSE OF FREEDOM BONDS.

    Section 3102 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) Issuance of Bonds.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
        bonds under this section, to be known as `United States Defense 
        of Freedom Bonds', in response to the acts of terrorism 
        perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001.
            ``(2) Form.--The bonds authorized by paragraph (1) shall be 
        in such form and denominations, and shall be subject to such 
        terms and conditions of issue, conversion, redemption, 
        maturation, payment, and rate of interest as the Secretary may 
        prescribe.''.
                                 <all>
```
Executive Order 14107

# Exemption of Paul H. Maurer From Mandatory Separation

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 8425(e) of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1**                    . Consistent with section 8425(e) of title 5, United States Code, I hereby determine that the public interest requires that Paul H. Maurer, the current Special Agent in Charge of the George W. Bush Protective Detail in Dallas, Texas, shall be exempted from automatic separation under section 8425(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code. The Director of the United States Secret Service retains all applicable supervisory authority over Special Agent Maurer, including authorities vested in him pursuant to chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code.

**Sec. 2**                    .                     *General Provisions.*                     (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:                

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2023-19798

Billing code 3395-F3-P
From: bkeckritz@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:20:52 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,

Brock Keckritz

Waterloo, IL 62298
From: pastorjoekamphuis@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:02 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,

Joseph Kamphuis

Zillah, WA 98953
#### Mary Griffith v. Andrew G. Cady.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 333-60928, Form S-8, No. 333-57948 and Form S-8, No. 33-34476) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 333-90408 and Form S-8, No. 333-04484) pertaining to the 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-125816) pertaining to the Intrusion Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 29, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Intrusion Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

 

 
| **/s/   Whitley Penn LLP** | ** ** |
|----------------------------|------------|
| Dallas,   Texas            |       |
| March 29,   2011      |       |

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0985. SANDRO ROMAGNOLI v. ROCK WEST INVESTMENTS II,

LLC.

This case commenced as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court against

tenant Certo, LLC. The superior court issued a writ of possession, and Certo, LLC

filed a de novo appeal to superior court. Landlord Rock West Investments II, LLC

filed a separate action in superior court against Certo and Sandro Romagnoli, who

guaranteed payment under the lease. Rock West sought possession of the premises

and damages for breach of the guaranty agreement. The superior court treated both

matters as part of a de novo appeal from the magistrate court ruling. Rock West

moved for partial summary judgment, and on August 26, 2014, the superior court

granted the motion, finding the guaranty agreement enforceable and issuing a writ of

possession.

1

Certo filed an application for discretionary appeal from the ruling, which was

dismissed. See Case Number A15D0042, decided Oct. 9, 2014. Romagnoli filed this

direct appeal on September 24, 2014. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Pretermitting whether Romagnoli – who was not a party to the dispossessory

action in magistrate court – has a right of direct appeal, his notice of appeal is

untimely. Although a notice of appeal generally may be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order sought to be appealed, the underlying subject matter of an appeal controls

over the relief sought in determining the proper appellate procedure. See Rebich v.

1 The trial court reserved certain issues, including Rock West’s claim for

attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11.

February 18, 2015
Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). The underlying subject matter

of this case is the dispossessory matter. See Radio Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Allen Road

Joing Venture, 311 Ga. App. 334, 335-336 (715 SE2d 752) (2011). And, pursuant

to OCGA § 44-7-56, an appeal from a dispossessory judgment must be filed within

seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones,

239 Ga. App. 521 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Here, the defendants filed the notice of

appeal 29 days after the superior court’s order was entered. Accordingly, the appeal

is untimely and his hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/18/2015
#### Alexander Watson, Appellant, *v.*Syracuse Rapid Transit Railroad Company, Respondent.

*Watson*v. *Syracuse Rapid Transit R. R. Co.,*143 App. Div. 959, affirmed.

(Argued January 27, 1913;

decided February 11, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 3, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant.

*Oliver D. Burden*for appellant.

*Charles E. Spencer*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.
Exhibit 4.3


 





FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN

BY

RICH UNCLES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST I

(Formerly Nexregen Real Estate Investment Trust I)


 


This First Amendment
of the RichUncles Real Estate Investment Trust I Dividend Reinvestment Plan (this “Amendment”) is made and entered
into effective March 27, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by RichUncles Real Estate Investment Trust I, a
real estate investment trust organized under the laws of the State of California (“RichUncles REIT”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.           Unless
otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms are used in this Amendment with the meaning assigned to them in the RichUncles
Real Estate Investment Trust I Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “DRP”).


 


B.           The
Board of Trust Managers of RichUncles REIT I believe it in the best interest to change the name of the RichUncles REIT I to RichUncles
Real Estate Investment Trust I and have submitted to the shareholders of RichUncles REIT I a proposed Amendment to the Declaration
of Trust effective as of March 19, 2015.


 


C.           Pursuant
to Section 11 of the DRP, RichUncles REIT desires to amend the DRP to reflect the change of the name of RichUncles REIT.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:


 


1.           Name.
Each instance where the words “RichUncles Real Estate Investment Trust I” appear in the DRP is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the words “RichUncles Real Estate Investment Trust I.”


 


2.           Continuity
of DRP. As expressly amended by this Amendment, the DRP shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and
is hereby confirmed and ratified in all respects.


 


3.           Captions.
The section headings used in this Amendment are for convenience of reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or
interpretation of the provisions hereof.


 


[Signature Page Follows]
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Educational TechnologyElementary Secondary EducationEvaluation CriteriaHigher EducationResource MaterialsWorld Wide Web

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: Sarah Bauer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: women’s preventive health care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:17:03 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.
---

EXHIBIT 5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS

We refer to our report of March 16, 2006, Appraisal Report on
  Certain Properties in Yemen and Canada of TransGlobe Energy Corporation (the
  Company) as of December 31, 2005 (the Report).

We hereby consent to references to our name in the Companys
  Amended Annual Report on Form 40-F/A to be filed with the United States Securities
  and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
  amended. We also confirm that we have read the Companys Amended Annual
  Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2005 dated August 9, 2006 and
  that we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the
  information contained in it that was derived from the Report or that is within
  our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with such
  Report.

Sincerely,

DeGolyer and MacNaughton Canada Limited



/s/Colin OuttrimName:      Colin P. Outtrim 
  Title:        Senior Vice President

Calgary, Alberta, Canada 
  August 9, 2006

---
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:49:20 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Currently, I pay $77 out-of-pocket every month for birth control, since my health insurance covers it

under NO circumstances. I've been waiting for this decision and 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 all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

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

Sincerely,

A. Friedman
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40768 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAIME GUEL-ESCOBEDO, also known as Jose Martinez-Mendoza Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1896-1 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jaime Guel-Escobedo has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guel-Escobedo has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.