alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LEE DAVID HUSTEAD, 

Appellant, 

No. 70156 

VS. 

MARJORIE L. HUSTEAD, 

Respondent. FILED 

APR 2 7 2016 

TRACIE K. LINDE.MAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERfr 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a hearing purportedly held on 

March 10, 2016, in a divorce action. Second Judicial District Court, 

Family Court Division, Washoe County; Cynthia Lu, Judge. 

Our preliminary review of the docketing statement and the 

documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a 

potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears that the notice of 

appeal was prematurely filed, before the entry of a final written judgment, 

and is therefore of no effect. See NRAP 4(a)(1); Rust v. Clark Cty. School 

District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987). To the extent appellant 

seeks to appeal from the order striking a request for submission entered 

February 24, 2016, the order is not appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This 

court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is 

authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 

100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule permits an 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 4409. to-132 
appeal from an order striking a request for submission. Accordingly, we 

conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Chzit_ 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Cynthia Lu, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Lee David Hustead 

Surratt Law Practice, PC 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 4)Dget(7
From: springlady39@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:43:05 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,

Margaret Jurewicz

Schaumburg, IL 60193
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 (0.87 MB)
 
 USS Vella Gulf; CG 72; OFRP; CSG-2; HSM-74
 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statements of Income and Retained Earnings for the twelve months ended
December 31, 1995, 1994, and 1993 and from the Balance Sheets at December
31, 1995 and 1994 of PACCAR Financial Corp. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           5,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,051,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,790
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          61,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,074,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        999,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     31,000
<COMMON>                                        14,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,074,405
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,313
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,816
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,809
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. forces respond to gunfire aboard the S/V Quest
 By , CENTCOM Public Affairs
  CENTCOM
 TAMPA, Fla. (Feb. 22, 2011) — At approximately 1 a.m. EST today, while negotiations were ongoing to secure the release of four American hostages, U.S. forces responded to gunfire aboard the pirated vessel (S/V) Quest. As they responded to the gunfire, reaching and boarding the Quest, the forces discovered all four hostages had been shot by their captors. Despite immediate steps to provide life-saving care, all four hostages ultimately died of their wounds. “We express our deepest condolences for the innocent lives callously lost aboard the Quest,” said Gen James N. Mattis, U.S. Central Command Commander. During the boarding of the Quest, the reaction force was engaged by pirates on board the vessel. Two pirates died during the confrontation and 13 were captured and detained along with two pirates already in US Forces custody. The US Forces also found the remains of two other pirates already dead aboard the Quest.  In total, it is believed 19 pirates were involved in the hijacking of the S/V Quest. US Forces have been closely monitoring the S/V Quest for approximately 3 days, once it became known to be pirated. Four U.S. Navy warships comprised the response force dedicated to recovering the S/V Quest: the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), the guided-missile destroyers USS Sterett (DDG 104) and USS Bulkeley (DDG 84). The ships are deployed to the region to conduct maritime security operations and to provide support to operations Enduring Freedom and New Dawn. Questions can be addressed to U.S. Central Command at 813-827-5895.
From: gkenney@bethel.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:38:52 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,

Gene Kenney

Saint Paul, MN 55104
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Title of Each Class of | Maximum Aggregate | Amount of |   |
|   | Securities Offered | Offering Price(1) | Registration Fee(2) |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 1.500% PowerNotes®  Due September 15, 2019 | $3,207,000 | $371.69 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | TOTAL |   | $371.69 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |

|     |                                    |
|-----|------------------------------------|
| (1) | Excludes accrued interest, if any. |

|     |                                                                             |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Calculated in accordance with Rule 457(r) under the Securities Act of 1933. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | CUSIP |   | Aggregate | Selling |   | Gross | Net | Coupon |   | Coupon | Coupon | Maturity | 1st Coupon |   | 1st |   | Survivor's |   | Product |   |   |
|   | Number |   | Principal | Price |   | Concession | Proceeds | Type |   | Rate | Frequency | Date | Date |   | Coupon |   | Option |   | Ranking |   |   |
|   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 14912HSY7 |   | $3,207,000.00 | 100% |   | 0.825% | $3,180,542.25 | Fixed |   | 1.500% | Semi- | 09/15/2019 | 09/15/2017 |   | $8.04 |   | Yes |   | Senior Unsecured |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Annual |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Notes |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership III for
the year ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                           0000733591
<NAME>                          REALMARK PROPERTY INVESTORS LTD PARTNERSHIP III





<MULTIPLIER> 1


<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                    150,836
<SECURITIES>                              929,138
<RECEIVABLES>                             514,075
<ALLOWANCES>                              340,735
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,575,798
<PP&E>                                 12,947,791
<DEPRECIATION>                          6,116,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,564,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     379,288
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,564,042
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2,714,957
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,235,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        489,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (520,868)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            (520,868)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (32.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0


</TABLE>
From: Harrison, Theresa

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:07:24 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 Catholic hospitals 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. Religious choices are individual, not

institutional. No individual, acting in the name of an institution, has the right to deny individuals their

rights to religious freedom, nor to impose the consequences of his/her religious choices on others.

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

Sincerely,

T.H.
----

Removal from the register of Case C-459/01 (1)

(2004/C 94/80)

By order of 27 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-459/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

----

(1)OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

----
---

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 29, 2008 (except as to Notes 15 c, d and e which are as of February 10, 2009), relating to the consolidated financial statements of TransGlobe Energy Corporation (which report on the consolidated financial statements expressed an unqualified opinion and includes a separate report titled Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States of America Reporting Differences referring to changes in accounting principles) and our report dated February 29, 2008 related to the effectiveness of TransGlobe Energy Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Amendment No. 1 on Form 40-F/A of TransGlobe Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|February 10, 2009
    Calgary, Canada | /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
|------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
No. 372.

#### Cade et al. *v.*City of Monroe.

*James Sharp, Jr.*for petitioners.

Supreme Court of Louisiana. Certiorari denied.
From: donnabening@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM Recommendations for Contraceptive Services in Health Care Law

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:01:31 AM

U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services:

E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA@dol.gov

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.

Sincerely,

D. Bening, Texas
From: Karen Howard-Winters

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support for Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:58:47 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.
From: tonyhollamby@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:00 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,

Tony Hollamby

Patchogue, NY 11772