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 (0.98 MB)
 
 Team Moody U.S. Air Force USAF United States Air Force Battlefield Airmen Flying Tigers Attack-Rescue-Prevail Georgia Airmen
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            1092
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       1817
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            2603
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              2619
<LOANS>                                          41613
<ALLOWANCE>                                        322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   49130
<DEPOSITS>                                       36444
<SHORT-TERM>                                      2350
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                812
<LONG-TERM>                                       3000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                        6520
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   49130
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2595
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  200
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     7
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  2802
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1292
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1582
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1220
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    946
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    494
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         494
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.58
<LOANS-NON>                                         23
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   284
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  322
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            322
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TONY CHEVALLIER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 7:16

- cr - 00116

- D

- 6; 7:22

- cv - 00012

- D )

Submitted : February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Tony Chevallier, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7116 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Tony Chevallier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1 )( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S.
1 0 0, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Chevallier has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7116 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                              95
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,124
<PP&E>                                          18,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,171
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,751
<SALES>                                         28,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,484
<CGS>                                           24,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,909)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,864)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,864)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.23)


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1276 CAF 15-01895 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KELLY NEUPERT, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JASON M. NEUPERT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
DENIS A. KITCHEN, JR., WILLIAMSVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
KELLY L. BALL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Mary G. Carney, J.), entered October 16, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order entered upon his default.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate an order, entered upon his default, that awarded petitioner mother sole custody of the parties’ children and ended the father’s visitation with the children.
We reject the father’s contention that he did not receive notice of the default hearing. To the contrary, the record establishes that the notice Family Court mailed to the father was not returned, and that the father had actual knowledge of the hearing ( see Matter of Strumpf v Avery , 134 AD3d 1465, 1466; see also Matter of Geoffrey Colin D. v Janelle Latoya A. , 132 AD3d 438, 438). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father’s motion inasmuch as he failed to offer either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense ( see Strumpf , 134 AD3d at 1466; see also Matter of Roshia v Thiel , 110 AD3d 1490, 1491, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 22 NY3d 1037). The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. “[I]t is well settled that no appeal lies from an order entered on default” ( Matter of Bradley M.M. [Michael M.—Cindy M.] , 98-2- 1276 CAF 15-01895
AD3d 1257, 1258; see generally Hines v Hines , 125 AD2d 946, 946).

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
From: james button

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Institute of Medicine recommendations

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:54:37 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government

to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage

requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption

would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s recommendations

and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

James Button

2694 Big horn Circle

Lafayette CO 80026
From: rosiechance1@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Rosemarie Chance

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
No. 389, Misc.

#### Mirra *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

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

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
II

Calendar No. 152

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1233

To provide penalties for certain unauthorized writing with respect to consumer

products.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 24, 2001

Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DEWINE, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 6, 2001

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, with an amendment

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To provide penalties for certain unauthorized writing with

respect to consumer products.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Product Packaging

5 Protection Act of 2001’’.
2

S 1233 RS

1 SEC. 2. TAMPERING WITH CONSUMER PRODUCTS.

2 Section 1365 of title 18, United States Code, is

3 amended—

4 (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as

5 subsections (g) and (h), respectively; and

6 (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the fol7 lowing new subsection (f):

8 ‘‘(f)(1) Whoever, without the consent of the manufac9 turer, retailer, or authorized distributor, intentionally

10 tampers with a consumer product that is sold in interstate

11 or foreign commerce by knowingly placing or inserting any

12 writing in the consumer product, or the container for the

13 consumer product, before the sale of the consumer product

14 to any consumer shall be fined under this title, imprisoned

15 not more than three years, or both.

16 ‘‘(2) As used in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the

17 term ‘writing’ means any form of representation or com18 munication, including handbills, notices, or advertising,

19 that contain letters, words, or pictorial representations.’’.

20 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

21 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Product Packaging Pro22 tection Act of 2001’’.

23 SEC. 2. TAMPERING WITH CONSUMER PRODUCTS.

24 Section 1365 of title 18, United States Code, is

25 amended—
3

S 1233 RS

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as

2 subsections (g) and (h), respectively; and

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:

4 ‘‘(f)(1) Whoever, without the consent of the manufac5 turer, retailer, or distributor, intentionally tampers with

6 a consumer product that is sold in interstate or foreign

7 commerce by knowingly placing or inserting any writing

8 in the consumer product, or in the container for the con9 sumer product, before the sale of the consumer product to

10 any consumer shall be fined under this title, imprisoned

11 not more than 3 years, or both.

12 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘writing’ means any

13 form of representation or communication, including hand14 bills, notices, or advertising, that contain letters, words, or

15 pictorial representations.’’.
Calendar No. 152

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1233

A BILL

To provide penalties for certain unauthorized

writing with respect to consumer products.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2001

Reported with an amendment
From: kellyisbell@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03:58 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,

Kelly Isbell

Linwood, MI 48634
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Phillip E. Becker, EVP and Chief Lending Officer, Interim Chief
Executive Officer and H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III, SVP and Chief Financial
Officer, of Wayne Savings Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section
1350, that:.

      (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
            ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


November 14, 2005                       /s/ Phillip E. Becker
-------------------------               ----------------------------------------
Date                                    Phillip E. Becker, EVP and Chief Lending
                                        Officer, Interim Chief Executive Officer


November 14, 2005                       /s/ H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III
-------------------------               ----------------------------------------
Date                                    H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III,
                                        SVP and Chief Financial Officer