alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 (3.83 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
<PAGE>

                         COMPANY: WORLD OF SCIENCE, INC.
                                  TICKER: WOSI
                                  EXCHANGE: NMS

                                 FORM-TYPE: 10-Q
           Exhibit 11. Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings


                           FILING-DATE: June 13, 2000

                                   Exhibit 11

                             WORLD OF SCIENCE, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE NET LOSS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                            Quarter Ended
                                                   -----------------------------
Basic Loss Per Share:                              May 1, 1999    April 29, 2000
                                                   -----------    --------------

Net loss                                            $(1,573)         $(2,157)

Weighted average common shares outstanding            4,761            4,736

Basic loss per share                                $ (0.33)         $ (0.46)
                                                    =======          =======

Diluted Loss Per Share:

Net loss                                            $(1,573)         $(2,157)

Weighted average common shares outstanding            4,761            4,736

Diluted loss per share                              $ (0.33)         $ (0.46)
                                                    =======          =======


                                       13
No. 589, Misc.

#### Bush *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

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

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

May 4, 1915.

#### Josephine R. Brooks *v.*William E. Brooks.

Section 2, chapter 104, Laws of 1911, does not empower the superior court to appoint a guardian of a minor upon an original petition, but prevents section 1 of the act being so construed as to take from any court of competent jurisdiction authority to appoint guardians of minors whose parents are living.

Libel for Divorce. Trial at the May term, 1914, of the superior court before *Sawyer,*J., who found that the plaintiff’s charges were not sustained and dismissed the libel. Subsequently, a motion filed by the plaintiff in the superior court during the pendency of the libel, requesting the appointment of a guardian for her minor child, was dismissed by *Pike,*C. J. To the foregoing finding and rulings the plaintiff excepted.

*Marion W. Cottle*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Walter D. II. Hill,*for the defendant.

Young, J.

The plaintiff failed to produce evidence to satisfy the court of the justness of her cause of action; and as it cannot be said *548that the court erred in coming to this conclusion, she takes nothing by her first exception.

The plaintiff concedes that section 13, chapter 175, of the Public Statutes, has no application, but contends that section 2, chapter 104, Laws of 1911, authorizes the appointment of a guardian. Section 2 provides, in substance, that nothing contained in section 1 shall prevent any court of competent jurisdiction from appointing a guardian of the person of a minor. It is therefore the office of section 2 to prevent section 1 being so construed as to take from the court jurisdiction to appoint guardians of minors whose parents are living, and not to confer such jurisdiction. The probate court is specially authorized to appoint guardians of minors. P. S., c. 178, s. 1.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
From: ned@straightpaths.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:42:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ned McGrady

Jackson, MI 49201
From: garamirez3@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:52 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,

Joan Martinez

Santa Maria, CA 93454
From: VJS77@FRONTIER.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:49 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,

VICKI SUNDAY

Fort Wayne, IN 46835
#### Simon Heilbrunn, Appellant, *v.*German Alliance Insurance Company of New York, Respondent..

(Submitted January 20, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Motion to amend remittitur denied, without costs. (See 206 N. Y. 683.)
From: Meadows, Richard L.

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject exemptions for religious employers

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:22:30 AM

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. Please recall that

religious freedom means freedom from religion if one so chooses but this exemption would put religion

in the position to control access to preventative medical care for young women in particular.

Sincerely,

Richard Meadows

Columbia, Missouri
-----Original Message----- 

From: Roy Steeves [mailto:RCSteevesJr@Comcast.net] 

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:55 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: FW: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Roy Steeves [mailto:RCSteevesJr@Comcast.net] 

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:56 PM 

To: ORI@dol.gov 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule 

Hi, 

 I am a retiree of Lucent Technologies. 

 I know the NRLN is trying to protect my pension assets (and the 

assets of millions of others). 

I don't know all the legal wording, etc., but I would like to request 

the definition be modified to protect my pension assets. It is very 

unsettling to me, and destabilizing to our economy, to allow foreign 

companies (Alcatel in my case) to opt-out of the responsibilities they 

accepted when they bought companies based in the United States. If my 

pension is affected, I can't spend money that helps our economy to 

recover (small though my contribution may be). 

 The following sentence is, I think, the essence of the NRLN 

position. I copied it from their letter to the Department of Labor. 

 If the stated objectives of the Proposed Rule are to be fully 

achieved, it is essential that the definition of fiduciary in this 

rulemaking requires all fiduciaries be subject to the jurisdiction of 

the U.S. courts. 

 Thank you, 

 Roy C. Steeves Jr.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/02 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the annual report of Identix Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of Joseph J. Atick,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Erik E. Prusch, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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





         /s/ Joseph J Atick                            Date: September 12, 2003
         ----------------------------------------
         Joseph J. Atick, Chief Executive Officer


         /s/ Erik E. Prusch                            Date: September 12, 2003
         ----------------------------------------
         Erik E. Prusch, Chief Financial Officer
#### Italian Sayings Bank of the City of New York, Respondent, *v.*Giuseppina De Angelis, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

*Italian Savings Bank*v. *De*Angelis, 149 App. Div. 916, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted March 10, 1913;

decided March 18, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 23', 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for permission to pay certain moneys into court.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the order appealed from was not a final order in a special proceeding; that permission to appeal had not been obtained, and that the appellant has not perfected her appeal.

*Robert W. Bernard*for motion.

*Michael O. Rini*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0038.html[8/29/2011 1:20:24 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 23, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeaabe

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0038

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Patti F

Address: WI

General Comment

As a small business owner, I oppose the narrow religious exemption you have allowed in this Rule

and how it does not pertain to those employers (like myself) who have firmly held beliefs in not

funding birth control and/or abortion inducing drugs within their healthcare plan. 

In this country, we are supposed to have religious freedom, as long as that freedom does not restrict

someone else's freedom (as defined by law). Any of my employees who DID decide to use birth

control or abortion inducting drugs may still do so BY LAW, but I SHOULD NOT have to provide the

insurance to pay for it. 

I WILL NEVER purchase health insurance for my employees that provides these types of

objectionable treatments. I would rather not provide health insurance AT ALL....even if it means

paying a penalty in the future. 

Surely, employers who have to drop their insurance for employees due to religious convictions is not

the point of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Please consider revising this religious

exemption to include ALL employers who have a conscientious objection to these type of provisions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         351,237
<SECURITIES>                                   538,706
<RECEIVABLES>                                  523,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (37,259)
<INVENTORY>                                    228,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,831,283
<PP&E>                                         694,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                (317,307)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,266,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          597,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       784,692
<OTHER-SE>                                     732,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,266,275
<SALES>                                      3,147,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,147,106
<CGS>                                        1,452,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,111,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               424,180
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,919
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                584,254
<INCOME-TAX>                                   210,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            373,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   373,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01
        


</TABLE>
From: merrileeliddiard@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:23 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,

Merrilee Liddiard

South Pasadena, CA 91030