alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: mmacune@itoncommand.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:42:51 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,

Melissa Macune

Louisville, CO 80027
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 2, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00832

- CR

Ex Parte Freddy OQUENDO

,

Appellant

From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1591B

Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The

appellant ’ s brief is due on March 1, 2018

.

________________________ _________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of February, 2018

.

__________________________ _________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, David I. Fann, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report, as amended, of Excelsior Private
Equity Fund II, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September 12, 2003

/s/ David I. Fann
--------------------
David I. Fann, Co-Chief Executive Officer
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 (1.43 MB)
 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
SCAD-11-0000162 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

EARLE A. PARTINGTON, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 10-079-8913)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ., 

and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura,

in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon consideration of Respondent Earle A. Partington’s

February 9, 2012 motion for reconsideration of the February 8,

2012 order of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i denying

Respondent Partington reinstatement to the practice of law,

Respondent Partington’s January 31, 2012 affidavit and the

record, it appears that Respondent Partington has thus far failed

to aver that he complied with the Order of Suspension during the

full period of the suspension, as required by Rule 2.17(b) of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH) and,

consequently, has not met the requirements for reinstatement. 

Therefore, 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-11-0000162

16-FEB-2012

08:26 AM
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Partington’s

motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with RSCH

Rule 2.17(a), that Respondent Partington may not resume the

practice of law until reinstated by order of this court.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 16, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Craig H. Nakamura

2
No. 322, Misc.

#### Bram *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and /. *F. Bishop*for the United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 592, Misc.

#### White *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

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

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### ALABAMA et al. *v.*UNITED STATES.

No. 324.

Decided October 22, 1962.

*MacDonald Gallion,*Attorney General of Alabama, and *Willard W. Livingston, Leslie Hall*and *Gordon Madison,*Assistant Attorneys General, for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene*and *David Rubin*for the United States.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is affirmed. *United States*v. *Thomas,*362 U. S. 58.
#### William J. Purman, Appellant, *v. George*H. Levis, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
THIRD AMENDMENT

TO PROMISSORY NOTE

This Amendment Agreement (the "Amendment") is made effective
as of October 11, 1999, by and between SGI International, a Utah Corporation
("SGI" or the "Company") and Ben Reppond, ("Lender").

RECITALS

A. SGI issued a promissory note (the "Note") to Lender dated as of January 28,
1999, in the principal amount of $250,000.

B. The parties contemplated that the note would be used as the purchase price
for Preferred Shares to be issued by SGI.

C. Company and Lender desire to exchange $150,000 of principal and accrued
interest from said Note, for restricted stock as more specifically
described in a Restricted Stock Subscription Agreement of even date
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to further extend the terms of the Note
to and including November 1, 2000.

AGREEMENT

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions of this
Third Amendment, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

1. Reduction of Principal. The principal amount of said Note is hereby amended
to $100,000.

2. Extension of Maturity Date. The maturity date of said Note is hereby amended
to November 1, 2000.

3. Restricted Common Stock. At maturity, both the remaining principal amount
and accrued interest thereon shall be payable in Restricted Common Stock of
Company, calculated at 75% of the average closing bid price for the five (5)
trading days prior to maturity.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their
duly authorized signatories as of the day and year first written above.

SGI International, Inc. LENDER: Ben Reppond

By: Michael L. Rose By: Ben Reppond, an individual
Title: CEO/President
**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**

|                                   |                                                                                              |                                                |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                   | NW                Tech Capital, Inc.                                                              |
|                              |                                                                                         |                                           |
| Date: May                14, 2008 | By:                                                                                     | /s/ James              A.              Wheeler |
|                                   | James                A. WheelerChief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                   |                                                                                              |

----
No. 287.

#### Bendix Corporation *v.*National Labor Relations Board.

*Allen S. Hubbard*for petitioner.

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

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the report of CommScope, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 
| By:    | /s/ FRANK M. DRENDEL                                 |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Frank M. Drendel                                     |   |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| Date:  | May 5,  2006                                         |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| By:    | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDT                              |   |   |
|   | Jearld L. Leonhardt                                  |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| Date:  | May 5,  2006                                         |   |

 

----
1 E | IG 3G /- Page | of |
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION / la G= 120.39 /-/0 SP 02 04
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS.
BRANCH As of: September 02, 2011

Received: August 17, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011
Tracking No. 80ce3c94

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of

Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0167
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Unlerows. &9 Submitter Information

Address: 11104-3128
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

] strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless

of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
areality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectlId=09000... 9/2/2011
From: hrodgers1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:38 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,

Hannah Rodgers

Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
From: pat4forty@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:15:11 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,

Patrick Lee

Elk Grove, CA 95624
From: drmikegreen@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:01:36 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,

Michael Green

Chesterfield, MO 63017