alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Educational BenefitsEducational ChangeEducational ResearchElementary Secondary EducationLiterature ReviewsSchool AdministrationSchool EffectivenessSchool SizeSmall SchoolsStudent School Relationship

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


     The following list sets forth the name of the Registrant and each of its
subsidiaries, the states or other jurisdictions under which they are organized,
and the percentage ownership of the voting securities of each corporation by
its immediate parent.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Corporation and State                  Percentage of voting securities
    under which organized                         owned by immediate parent   
------------------------------                 -------------------------------
<S>                                                                <C>
F&M Bancorp (Md.)                                                    --
     Farmers and Mechanics National
       Bank (U.S.)                                                 100%
            Key Holdings, Inc. (Md.)                               100%
                Monocacy Center Associates L.P. (VA)                60%
            Key Management, Inc (DE)                               100%
</TABLE>





                                      -1-
From: Dawn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:47:23 AM

My good people:

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,

Dawn M. Albanese
From: Don Maclay

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Services

Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:05:05 PM

To the Department of Health and Human Services:

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.

Nancy H. Maclay
From: garciavdj@onlymyemail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

DONNA GARCIA

San Diego, CA 92127
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THEEXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofIntrusion Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year endingDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael L. Paxton, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| March 29, 2006 | /s/ Michael L. Paxton   |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
|           | Michael L. Paxton       |
|           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
From: stano360@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:24 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,

Stan Orlaski

Temecula, CA 92592
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.74 MB)
 
 Travels European Security James N. Mattis SecDef NATO
 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
#### Clark *v.*Knowles.

Eish, C. J.

1. “It is essential to the maintenance of an action of ejectment that the premises .[sought to be recovered] be described with such certainty as that, in the event of a recovery by the plaintiff, a writ of possession issued upon, .the judgment and describing the premises as laid in the declaration, shall so identify -the premises sued for as that the sheriff, in the execution of the writ, can deliver the possession in accordance with its mandate.” *Harwell*v. *Foster,*97 *Ga.*264 (22 S. E. 994). See also, *Turner*v. *Rives,*75 *Ga.*606; *McCullough*v. *East Tenn., Va.*& *Ga. Ry. Co.,*106 *Ga.*275 (32 S. E. 97). *2922. Accordingly, where in a suit to recover land the petition described the premises sued for “as about fifty acres on the west 'Side of or in the northwest corner of lot of land number five hundred and twenty-four in the eighth district of” a designated county, such petition was properly dismissed upon demurrer, on the ground that it contained no sufficient description of the premises sued for.

Argued July 2,

Decided August 14, 1907.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Mitchell. Colquitt superior court. October 2, 1906.

*T. II. Parker*and *W. C. McCall,*for plaintiff.

*J. A.*Wilkes, for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        Year
<CASH>                                               2052475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        114212
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (6535)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               17310261
<DEPRECIATION>                                       6783301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       15779061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         15779061
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2761823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1355304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     233123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     10390
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1173396
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1173396
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: thelmafs@consolidated.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:19:56 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,

Thelma Schlosser

Wexford, PA 15090
Jan. 22: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By CJTF - Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
  January 22, 2015 Release # 2015022FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA -**
 On Jan. 21, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL
 terrorists in Syria, using bomber, fighter, and remotely piloted 
aircraft to conduct 10 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and Coalition 
military forces conducted 21 airstrikes in Iraq, using attack, bomber, 
fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. All 
strikes took place between 8 a.m., Jan. 21, and 8 a.m., Jan. 22, local 
time. The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release: **Syria***  Near Kobani, nine airstrikes struck six ISIL tactical units and destroyed 17 ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.*  Near Ar Raqqah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL weapons storage facility. **Iraq***  Near Kirkuk, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.*
  Near Mosul, 16 airstrikes struck two large ISIL units, two ISIL 
tactical units, an ISIL building, and an ISIL mortar team, and destroyed
 six ISIL culverts, two ISIL bridges, three ISIL buildings, an ISIL 
artillery system, 11 ISIL vehicles, an ISIL fighting position, six ISIL 
staging positions, two ISIL heavy weapons, an ISIL VBIED, and four ISIL 
armored vehicles.*  Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck a large ISIL 
unit and an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL mortar position, an
 ISIL fighting position, and an ISIL armored vehicle.*  Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL VBIED. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely. The
 strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the 
operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose
 to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The 
destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the 
terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. 
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., 
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and the United
 Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the 
U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7812
MANUEL RAUL REYO PENA GARCIA MONTERO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE M.W. BUSH, UnPresident, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2928-WDQ) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manuel Raul Montero, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Manuel Raul Montero, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Montero v. Bush , No. CA-03-2928-WDQ (D. Md. filed Oct. 27, 2003 & entered Oct. 28, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 481.

#### International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Frigidaire Local 801, *v.*National Labor Relations Board.

*Benjamin C. Sigal*and *David S. Davidson*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Stuart Rothman, Dominick L. Manoli*and *Norton J. Come*for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.