alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
386 AEW stands up innovation cell--Task Force 99.M
 
  By Senior Master Sgt. David Salanitri, 386th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs Office
  Once again, the 386 Air Expeditionary Wing is leading modernization throughout the region, standing up the very first satellite innovation cell under U.S. Air Forces Central Command’s Task Force 99 at Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait.
On Oct. 26, 2022, the 386 AEW stood up Task Force 99.M, paying tribute to its mascot--the Marauder.
About one month ago, Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, Combined Forces Air Component Commander, announced the creation of Task Force 99--an agile, specialized unit designed to look for opportunities to enhance AFCENT’s ability to detect and defeat any form of unfriendly drone and to rapidly innovate in all domains to ensure victory.
In response, the 386 AEW is the first wing in the region to bring Grynkewich’s vision to life.
“We have completed out initial launch of Task Force 99.M, manned with two-full time action officers to charge hard at getting after Lt. Gen Grynkewich’s vision,” said Lt. Col. Joshua Elwell, Chief of Staff and TF 99.M overseer. “Our wing has a history of innovating, which can be seen every day at the region’s busiest aerial port. Task Force 99.M is a continuation of this legacy.”
The two-person staff is looking for 10 volunteers to join their team. This team will compile inputs and recommendations throughout the wing and present them to the wing Commander, Col. George Buch Jr. The wing had already informally had an innovation team, which has built several proposals, including fortifying the force so that deployed members are fully taking care of themselves, just like we do all weapons systems.
“To be amongst this new team is an opportunity I don’t assume lightly,” said Tech. Sgt. Joseph Martínez, TF 99.M action officer. “The challenges we’re resolving will protect our teammates and deter threats, now and in the future.”
The team isn’t starting from scratch. Throughout the last four months, cells throughout the wing have compiled solutions to make Airmen stronger in all aspects and increase lethality across several functions.
“We’re not starting from square one thanks to our innovation cells throughout the wing,” said Maj. Brian Wright, action office for TF 99.M. “Soon, we’ll be presenting vetted solutions to wing leadership that will help current and future Airmen. The best part is that these solutions aren’t from people who are out of touch, but are sourced from Airmen who are in the fight every day.”
If you’re part of the 386 AEW and would like to volunteer for TF 99.M, notify your leadership—positions will be emailed to leadership the week of Oct 31, 2022.
No. 551.

#### Lott et al. *v.*United States.

*John H. Crooker, Leroy Den-man Moody, C. Anthony Friloux, Jr., Joe S. Moss, C. W. Wellen*and *William M.-Ryan*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Joseph M. Howard*and *John P. Burke*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-10356

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

MIGUEL MEDELLIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ROBERT SHAW; JUDI SHEERIN STONEDALE, Dr.;

JOHN DOE, Safety Inspector,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95 CV 13 P)

______________________________________________________ July 28, 1995

Before DUHÉ, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant Medellin, an inmat e of the Texas State Prison

system, brought this civil rights suit against offic ials of the

place of his incarceration alleging deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs and to his safety. Upon the recommendation

of the magistrate judge the district court dismissed the pro se

complaint as frivolous. We affirm.2

Appellant's complaints concerning the medical treatment he

received after he was injured in a slip and fall accident leaving

the shower allege no more than negligence which is not actionable

under § 1983. He has asserted no state tort cause of action.

As to h is safety, Appellant alleges that he fell due to a

slippery condition on the shower floor and that this condition was

known to some unnamed safety inspector because some unstated number

of unnamed inmates had fallen in the same spot and be en injured.

These allegations do not state a claim of deliberate indifference.

A prison official acts with deliberate indifference under the

Eighth Amendment "only if he knows that [an] inmate[] face[s] a

substantial risk of serious harm and [ he] disregards that risk by

failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." F armer v.

Brennan

, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). Appellant's allegations

lack the particularity necessary to plead deliberate indifference.

AFFIRMED.
From: Louise M Ramsay

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:45:05 PM

 I join with all the women who worry about bringing children into a world where there

is very little support.

Please make sure free/low cost contraceptives are available under the health care reform. I

support national health care coverage as well.

Louise Ramsay

lgramsay@sbcglobal.net
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Certification of President and (Chief Executive Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Industrial Minerals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David Wodar, President and (Chief Executive Officer) 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 and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 November 14, 2007                /s/David Wodar
                                  ------------------
                                  David Wodar
                                  President and CE0



<PAGE>
From: pateuz1@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:06 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,

Patricia Uzzell

Hendersonville, TN 37075
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          35,305
<SECURITIES>                                    24,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,888
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,273
<PP&E>                                          39,472
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,090
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            18
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,064
<SALES>                                        167,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,178
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               116,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,015
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,040
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,040
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        


</TABLE>
From: stk777@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:17 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,

Steven Kays

, 461123
#### John S. Stubbs and another, Respondents, v. J. Walter Thompson, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

— Appeal dismissed, without oosts. Opinion hy

Daniels, J.
Exhibit 4.50


[Note: Translation from the original written
in Chinese]


 Execution Copy


 


Declaration and Undertaking


 


To:


eLongNet Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”)


No. 10 Middle Jiuxianqiao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing


 


eLong, Inc.


4th Floor, Hutchence David Century Garden, George
Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands


 


This Declaration and Undertaking has been duly executed
and represents the genuine intent of each of the two persons which are signatories hereto.


 


Hao Jiang (“Party A”)


Residence: Room 601, Building No. 63, No. 316, Gumeixi
Road, Minhang District, Shanghai


ID No.:


 


Shanshan Zhao (Spouse) (“Party B”)


Residence: Room 27A, Buidling No. 8, No. 118 Ziyun
Road, Changning District, Shanghai


ID No.:


 


Whereas:


Party A is a shareholder of Beijing eLong Information Technology
Co., Ltd., holding a 87.5% shareholding, and Party B is the lawful spouse of Party A.


 


Now, Party A and Party B both, in accordance
with PRC law and regulations, confirm and covenant to eLong, Inc. and WFOE as follows:


 


1.        Party
A and Party B both understand that the shareholding held by Party A is not the actual property of Party A, not part of Party A’s
assets, and not joint marital property of Party A and Party B under PRC law. Neither Party A nor Party B has any right to assert
any rights, benefits, preferences or claims related to the shareholding.


 


2.        Party
A and B both covenant that all rights and benefits related to the shareholding (including but not limited to inheritance, transfer,
voting, mortgage, disposal, benefits, etc.) are not part of the inheritable property of either party; Party A and Party B and any
party inheriting under PRC law do not have any right of inheritance to the shareholding.


 


3.        Party
A and Party B both represent and warrant, that no other family member or relative has any rights, benefits or preferences related
to the shareholding, there is no factual basis for any such claims or assertions, and no family member or relative shall make any
claims or assertions relating to the shareholding in the future.


 


4.        This
Declaration and Undertaking is the genuine expression of the intent of Party A and Party B, has been voluntarily issued
in accordance with applicable law, and is binding and enforceable on Party A and Party B, who shall bear all legal liability to
eLong, Inc. and WFOE for the effectiveness and enforceability of this Declaration and Undertaking.


 


5.        This
Declaration and Undertaking is irrevocable and permanent.


 


[remainder of page intentionally left blank]


 






     


     


    

 


[signature page of Declaration and Undertaking]


 


	Party A: Hao Jiang	 
	/s/ Hao Jiang	 
	Date:  September 7, 2015	 
	 	 
	Party B: Shanshan Zhao	 
	/s/ Shanshan Zhao	 
	Date:  September 7, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 13 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 13

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To extend authorization for the national flood insurance program.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) 
is amended--
            (1) in section 1309(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), by 
        striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 
        2003'';
            (2) in section 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), by striking 
        ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.

            Passed the Senate November 20, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 13

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To extend authorization for the national flood insurance program.
```
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 7, 2023.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Comments.applications@chi.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Greg Remus, Sara Remus, Alexander Remus and Zachary Remus, all of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin;*                     to form the Remus Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of Westbury Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Westbury Bank, both of Waukesha, Wisconsin.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-18153 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
From: cgsb@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:51:53 AM

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,

Camille Bytnar

Dundee, IL 60118
No. 216, Misc.

#### Tuttle *v.*Maine.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Frank E. Hancock,*Attorney General of Maine, and *Richard A. Foley,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Certiorari denied.