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

    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 (0.25 MB)
 
 5th MPAD Canadian Army Quebec farewell I Corps Canada Montmagny Courage Honors Ceremony
 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
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1267 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1267

  Congratulating the Mount Olive College Trojans for winning the 2008 
  National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Men's Baseball 
                         National Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2008

  Mr. Jones of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, and Mr. 
 Hayes) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the Mount Olive College Trojans for winning the 2008 
  National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Men's Baseball 
                         National Championship.

Whereas the Mount Olive College Trojans of Mount Olive, North Carolina, defeated 
        the Ouachita Baptist University Tigers of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, 6 to 2, 
        on May 31, 2008, to become the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic 
        Association (NCAA) Division II Men's Baseball National Champions;
Whereas pitcher Casey Hodges of Mount Olive College reaped the win for the 
        Trojans, giving up just 2 runs on 7 hits in his 8 innings, and striking 
        out 6 batters;
Whereas Mount Olive College went 4-0 in the tournament, and finished the 2007-
        2008 season with a record of 58-6;
Whereas this was the Trojan's first national championship in any sport;
Whereas Mount Olive Head Coach Carl Lancaster summed up the victory, saying, 
        ``This is a dream come true[;] We are extremely excited to bring this to 
        Mount Olive'';
Whereas Mount Olive College carries on the continuing tradition of North 
        Carolina schools winning NCAA championships;
Whereas Mount Olive College was founded in 1951, and in 2001 celebrated its 50th 
        anniversary; and
Whereas Mount Olive College serves 700 traditional students at the Mount Olive 
        location and 3,800 working adults throughout North Carolina, in 
        Goldsboro, New Bern, Research Triangle Park, Washington, and Wilmington: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the Mount 
Olive College Trojans for winning the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic 
Association Division II Men's Baseball National Championship.
                                 <all>
```
From: jklove@tc3net.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:55 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 Crowley

Palmyra, MI 49268
#### JOSEPH BREISIA, PROSECUTOR-DEFENDANT, v. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT.

Submitted October 13, 1933

Decided December 7, 1933.

Tor the prosecutor-defendant, *Levitan & Levitan (Abraham Levitan).*

Tor the respondent-complainant, *James A. Hamill.*

Before Justices Case, Botone and Donges.

Per Curiam.

The prosecutor seeks to set aside his conviction for the offense of wandering abroad on a public street and not giving a good account of himself. The offense was alleged to be *938under section 1 of An act concerning disorderly persons. (Revision of 1898.) Prosecutor is a married man, thirty years old, living with his family at a fixed abode and working at trucking when employment existed. He was observed wandering from the Palace lunch at about two o’clock in the afternoon of the day in question.

A conviction under the act must be for some offense under the statute. *State*v. *Regan,*67 *N. J. L.*106; 50 *Atl. Rep.*591. The prosecutor challenges the conviction.

The question before us is whether wandering abroad on a public street and not giving a good account of oneself is a disorderly act under the statute in question. Mr. Justice Parker, in *Archer*v. *First Criminal Court of Bergen County,*10 *N. J. Mis. R.*1159; 162 *Atl. Rep.*914, held not. The decision, though perhaps not binding upon us, is persuasive since the statute is aimed at paupers or those “who shall wander abroad and lodge in taverns, inns, beer-houses, outhouses, houses of entertainment, market houses, barns, or places or in the open air, and not give a good account of themselves.” 2 *Comp. Stat., p.*1927.

To arrive at any other conclusion violence must be done to the legislative language, and any citizen and householder will be subject to arrest because a police officer does not like his manner of walking and answering questions.

The conviction will be set aside.
Hood 

lb SO2/hr

Waste lb 

SO2/hr

May 1994, Furnace 12

(1 hood, 1 waste stack) 2.48 1.29

2.46 0.63

1.23 0.62

May 1994, Furnace 11

waste stack 1104 0.69

0.66

2.11

waste stack 1105 2.94

2.92

1.42

Jan 1995, Furnace 12

waste stack 1205 0.79

0.60

0.90

Northshore has two furnaces. Each furnace 

has three hood exhaust stacks and two waste 

exhaust stacks.

Page 1 of 3
lb SO2/hr Furnace Tested Test Date

Hood lb 

SO2/hr

Waste 

lb SO2/hr 2.60 Furnace 12 May 1994

1 1.23 0.60 1.26

2 2.46 0.62 1.24

3 2.48 0.63 1.24

4 0.66 1.24

5 0.69 1.24

6 0.79 1.38 Furnace 11 May 1994

7 0.90 1.32

8 1.29 4.20

9 1.42 5.8

10 2.11 5.8

11 2.92 2.8

12 2.94 1.54 Furnace 12 January 1995

n = 3 12 1.18

m = (n + 1)*.95 3.8 12.35 1.78

UPL = xm= 2.48 2.94 2.4 Furnace 11 July 2010

2.6

3 hood exhaust = 7.43 2.6

2 waste exhaust = 5.89 2.6

Furnace total = 13.32

Northshore Waste Gas Stack Test Data

Page 2 of 3
1.18 1.5

lb SO2/hr Furnace Tested Test Date 1.24 1.8

[1] 7.5 Furnace 12 May 1994 [2] 1.24 1.8

[1] 7.5 [2] 1.24 1.8

[1] 3.6 [2] 1.24 2.4

[1] 1.8 [2] 1.26 3.6

[1] 5.7 [2] 1.32 5.7

[1] 7.5 [2] 1.38 7.5

[1] 1.54 7.5

[1] 1.78 7.5

[1] 2.4

[1] 2.60

[1] 2.6

[1] 2.6

[1] 2.6

[1] 2.8

[1] 4.20

[1] 2.4 Furnace 11 July 2010 [2] 5.8

[1] 1.8 [2] 5.8

[1] 1.8 [2] n = 19 10

[1] 1.5 [2] m = (n + 1)*.95 19 10.45

UPL = xm= 5.80 7.50

13.30

Hood Exhaust Stack Test Data

Total Furnace UPL =

Page 3 of 3
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00251

- CV

I N THE E STATE OF S TEVEN D OUGLAS

N IELSEN

, D ECEASED §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (2015

- PR01535

- 2)

September 27, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

Dissent by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is fur ther ordered that A ppellant Linda Nielsen shall pay all of the costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7847

RONALD G. BAILEY-EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRISON HEALTHCARE SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-98-1510-WMN)

Submitted: May 4, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald G. Bailey-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Bailey-El appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his complaint under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West Supp. 1998). The district court’s dismissal without prejudice

is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal

without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [to the

complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id.

at 1066 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844

F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal

without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must

determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely

amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In

this case, Bailey-El may move the district court to reopen his case

and file an amended complaint either realleging Prison Healthcare

Services as the proper defendant or, alternatively, naming another

party as the proper defendant. Therefore, the dismissal order is

not appealable. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 4270]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-8]                         


[[Page 4270]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0603; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16]

 
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Saluda, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register September 14, 2009 that establishes 
Class E Airspace at Saluda County Airport, Saluda, SC.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46894), 
Docket No. FAA-2009-0603; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16. The FAA uses 
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule 
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 14, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1382 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00508-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.G., A.L.G., and J.P.C., Children

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01536

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, that portion of the trial court’s order 

terminating appellant’s parental rights is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further 

proceedings.

SIGNED December 11, 2013.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,253,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      24,311,431
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,611,818)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,972,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     12,372,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,494,662)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,972,463
<SALES>                                      5,674,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,618,541
<CGS>                                        3,118,002
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,475,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,043,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,510,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (411,232)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (411,232)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,816,152
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,404,920
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: w4rev@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:44 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,

Eddie Moore

Carnesville, GA 30521
Exhibit 10.3
**MUTUAL TERMINATION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT**
         **THIS AGREEMENT**is made as of this 26th day of September, 2002, by andamong **SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION**, a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and **LEROYS. ZIMMERMAN**, an individual (“Consultant”).
**BACKGROUND**
         **A.     **Company and Consultant executed and delivered that certain ConsultingAgreement, dated January 1, 2002 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to whichConsultant agreed to provide certain consulting services to Company for amonthly stipend.
         **B.     **The parties hereto now mutually desire to terminate the Agreement.
         **NOW, THEREFORE,**the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby,covenant and agree as follows:
         **1.     Mutual Termination of the Agreement.**The Agreement is herebyterminated effective on October 31, 2002.
         **2.     Binding Effect.**This instrument shall be binding upon, and inure tothe benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
         **3.     Entire Agreement.**This is the entire agreement between the partieshereto regarding the matters described herein, and there are no other terms,conditions, provisions or statements, oral or otherwise, of any kindwhatsoever.
         **4.     Governing Law.**This instrument shall be construed, interpreted andgoverned by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
         **5.     Counterparts.**This instrument may be executed in any number ofcounterparts, each of which shall be an original, and such counterpartstogether shall constitute one and the same instrument.
         **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties hereto have duly executed this instrument,under seal, as of the day and year first above written.       **SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION**, a Delaware corporation       By: /s/ Michael E. Tarvin        Michael E. Tarvin,Senior Vice President         /s/ LeRoy S. Zimmerman        **LeRoy S. Zimmerman**
EXHIBIT 32.1(1)



Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer



I, Calvin Reed, the chief executive officer of Peak
International Limited (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2003 |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 

---

|(1) | In accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Managements Reports on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.1 is deemed to accompany this Form 10-Q and will not be deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 171.

#### Donohue *v.*United States.

*Sydney M. Eisenberg*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Sidney M. Glazer*for the United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.