alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1998 CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998             SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                          64,581                  64,581
<SECURITIES>                                    64,635                  64,635
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,528                  21,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,550)                 (1,550)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,742                   5,742
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,145                 164,145
<PP&E>                                          16,529                  16,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,674                 180,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,843                  26,843
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           335                     335
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,147                 153,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,674                 180,674
<SALES>                                         32,067                  86,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,067                  86,362
<CGS>                                            8,674                  24,762
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,674                  24,762
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,669                  35,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,564)                 (4,671)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,288                  31,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,608                  11,694
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,680                  19,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,680                  19,489
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23                     .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20                     .50
        

</TABLE>
### Swanson, Brian (OST)
From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: Kathleen Rietz 

### <kathleen@rietzlawfirm.com

### > Monday, August 06, 2012 11:19 AM Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

### ]i]iZ choices for Rhinelander 

## b

We would like to say the Great Lakes option is whatwe would hope would be the choice. My husband flies back and forth from Denverto Rhinelander probably 6 times asummer and so farthe last two years with Frontier have by far been the most reliable and timely. -, Thanks,
Kathleen
Kathleen Rietz Office Administrator The Rietz Law Firm LLC 114Village Place Suite 301 

### P0 Box 5268 Dillon, Co 80435 970-468-0210

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          81,203
<SECURITIES>                                   135,525
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,776
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,077
<PP&E>                                          47,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 404,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,949
<BONDS>                                        300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         93
<COMMON>                                            48
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,578)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   404,542
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,361
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,968
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (35,467)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       439
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (35,906)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (35,906)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (7.47)
        


</TABLE>
From: kay400@suddenlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:19:48 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,

Kay Holleman

Paris, TX 75460
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           6
<LEGEND>            The  schedule   contains   summary   financial   information
                    extracted  from  the  financial  statements  and  supporting
                    schedules  as of the end of the most  current  period and is
                    qualified in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
                    statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000764901
<NAME>              Connecticut Daily Tax Free Income Fund, Inc.
<SERIES>
<NUMBER>            2
<NAME>              CLASS B
       
<S>                               <C>    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         169039179
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        169039179
<RECEIVABLES>                 941035
<ASSETS-OTHER>                0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                169980214
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     2196125
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           2196125
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      167791987
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         167810297
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         136638142
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       (7898)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      0
<NET-ASSETS>                  167784089
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             0
<INTEREST-INCOME>             4976187
<OTHER-INCOME>                0
<EXPENSES-NET>                1228504
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       3747683
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      (993)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         3746690
<EQUALIZATION>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     3747683
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       296146762
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   268450841
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           3476234
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        311711162
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     (6905)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         416312
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               1228953
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          139151773
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         1.00
<PER-SHARE-NII>               0.03
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          0.03
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           1.00
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               .67
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
        

</TABLE>
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 (1.84 MB)
 
 partners COALITION cjtf-oir 2nd BCT DAESH isis 82nd Airborne Division MOSUL Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve West Mosul Al Tarab 82nd Abn Div. advise and assist mission 9th Iraqi Army 2nd brigade combat team iraqi security forces U.S. Army Iraq Deployed MILITARY M1 Abrams Tank
 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
#### Edward J. Brown, Respondent, v. John Campbell, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinions by

Bockes, Landon and Peckham, JJ.
# USARCENT participates in exercise Protection Shield III

/ Published Feb. 18, 2022
SAUDI ARABIA, 
The third iteration of military exercise Protection Shield concluded Jan. 27 following nine days of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) survivability training between the United States and Saudi Arabia at the 5th Air Defense Group Base.During the exercise, over 400 participants from multiple organizations were synchronized to train in a real-world threat environment demonstrating their readiness to respond as a team to regional threats. This biennial training event involved U.S. Army Central’s Task Force Spartan, U.S. Air Force Emergency Management, U.S. Air Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal, U.S. Air Force medical experts, Royal Saudi Land Forces, Royal Saudi Air Defense, Royal Saudi Civil Defense Force, Red Crescent, Ministry of Health, and other Kingdom of Saudi Arabia civilian organizations working side-by-side toward a common goal.“Protection Shield III is a great opportunity for the U.S. military to come together with Saudi Arabia and represents a unique opportunity to both learn from and teach our training partners, honing our crisis response capabilities,” said Chief Warrant Officer 2 John Hartley, the Task Force Spartan CBRN officer in charge. “We remain committed to increasing our interoperability with our key partners; such tactical cooperation maintains our ready, responsive forces and reinforces our commitment to regional stability.”The culminating event of Protection Shield III involved a response to an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) chemical warfare attack and a mass casualty event. During the event an enemy UAS was dispatched to deliver notional chemical munitions as friendly forces observed the threat and neutralized it. After the threat was neutralized the U.S. and Saudi forces responded to decontaminate the area, vehicles, and each other to restore operations."We had to make a few adjustments to follow strict COVID-19 protocols that were implemented but we adapted the training and we continue to practice measures to mitigate and minimize the spread of COVID-19,” said Maj. Juan Rodriguez the lead exercise planner from the Build Partner Capacity Directorate at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. “Working with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provides a valuable opportunity to mutually improve our regional postures and cooperatively safeguard against specific threats."During the exercise participants were provided with interagency and mutual support components of a weapon of mass destruction incident from the Red Crescent, Ministry of Health and information on civil defense. Leading up to the culminating event Soldiers and airmen participated in mission analysis, command post exercises, detecting chemical agents, chemical munitions delivery systems, chemical decontamination practices, and major incident responses to chemical attacks.
From: ohaverlake1@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:05:25 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,

Marcia Hunter

, 81212-3615
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2014

h0127 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2014

147933

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147933

COA: 313365

Wayne CC: 12

- 002589

- FC

BERNARD A. SMITH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DE NIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### ELEANOR CHAPMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HARRY BURNS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted January 27, 1933

Decided June 21, 1933.

Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

For the defendant-appellant, *Samuel H. Nelson.*

For the plaintiff-appellee, *David Weinick.*

*476Per Curiam.

The only errors argued in the appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action growing out of a cross road accident is the failure to charge the following requests: “7. If the highway upon which plaintiff’s automobile was approaching the intersection was a ‘stop street’ at the intersection in question, then the driver of plaintiff’s vehicle was under obligation to use great care in crossing the intersection, 9. If you should decide against the plaintiff in this case, that does not mean that the plaintiff is without further relief, as she may still recover against the driver of the automobile wherein she was a passenger, if said driver was negligent.”

As to request No. 7, the argument seems to be that the defendant could use less care because the driver of plaintiff’s car must use great care. It is said, the *quantum*of care required of the operator of the vehicle wherein the plaintiff was a passenger determined relatively the *quantum*or degree of care that the defendant was under obligation to use. The defendant’s obligation was to use that degree of care as was commensurate with the risk of danger. *Senofsky*v. *Frecker, Atl. Rep.*797. On the issues as framed the negligence of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding would not bar her recovery if her injuries were the natural and proximate result of defendant’s negligence. It, therefore, seems that any charge as to the care required from the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding would have been improper. The trial court made it perfectly clear that liabilty must rest upon proof that the defendant failed to exercise a degree of care commensurate with the risk of danger. Beyond that he was not obliged to go.

As to the ninth request, we need only say it was properly refused. A trial court is concerned only with the law of the case before it, and has no knowledge as to what may occur in another action to be thereafter commenced.

The judgment is affirmed.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE

OF MARYLAND * COURT OF APPEALS

* OF MARYLAND

*

v. *

* Misc. Docket AG

* No. 47

JAMES KEVIN REED * September Term, 2019

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed

pursuant to Maryland Rule 19

- 736 by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland

and the Respondent, James Kevin Reed, wherein the Respondent acknowledges that

sufficient evidence exists to establish he violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of

Professional Conduct (MARPC) 1.4 (Md. Rule 19

- 301.4), 1.15(a) & (d) (Md. Rule 19

-

301.15), 8.1(a) & (b) (Md. Rule 19

- 308.1) and 8 .4(a)(b)(c) & (d) (Md. Rule 19

- 308.4),

Maryland Rules 19

- 407(a) and 19

- 410, and § 10

- 306 of the Business Occupations and

Professions Article of the Maryland Code, it is this 24th day of October , 2019,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jam es Kevin Reed, is hereby

disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective immediately; and it

is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of James Kevin Reed

from the register of attorneys in this Court, no tify the Respondent of such action, and

comply with the notice provisions of Maryland Rule 19

- 761(b).

/s/ Robert N. McDonald

Senior Judge