alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2853-073]

                    On September 5, 2023, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Maine Department of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act [1]                                          and section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,[2]                                          a state certifying agency is deemed to have waived its certifying authority if it fails or refuses to act on a certification request within a reasonable period of time, which is one year after the date the certification request was received. Accordingly, we hereby notify Montana DEQ of the following:                

*Date Montana DEQ received the certification request:*                     September 1, 2023.                

If Montana DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before September 1, 2024, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: September 6, 2023.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             18 CFR 4.34(b)(5) (2022).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-19655 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 339, Misc.

*Leon B. Polsky*for petitioner.

*Frank S. Hogan*and *H. Richard Uviller*for respondent.

#### Jardine *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
From: Sybil E Schlesinger

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58:37 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.

Sincerely,

Sybil Schlesinger

22 Rockland Street

Natick, MA 01760
1998-2014 quaterly reports are found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20150907215705/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/regulatory-enforcement/quarterly-enforcement-reports/qer-index
Order entered September 19, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00182-CR

No. 05-16-00183-CR

WALDRICK BROOKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-70150-S, F15-00333-S

ORDER

By order issued on August 11, 2016, the Court directed the Dallas County Clerk to 

supplement the record within fourteen days with the trial court’s findings of fact on appellant’s 

motion for new trial. To date, the district clerk has not complied with the Court’s order.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact on 

appellant’s motion for new trial.

Appellant’s September 13, 2016 second motion to abate the appeal is GRANTED to the 

extent we EXTEND the time to file appellant’s brief until THIRTY DAYS from the date of this 

order. All other relief requested in appellant’s second motion is DENIED.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit a copy of this order to Dallas County 

District Clerk Felicia Pitre and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
From: jwpete777@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:13:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joel Peterson

Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Estate of Lowell Emery Vereen, Deceased

No. 06-12-00121-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 40,808-

CCL). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the joint motion of the parties to 

dismiss the appeal by agreement should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 6, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
From: Lauren L. Clement

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Objection to Mandared Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive and Avortifacients

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:21:34 PM

I am opposed to the definition of "religious employer" within the context of a lack

of true conscience protection! It is critical that all voices of conscience be heard and

protected specific to important and widespread policy decisions. Respect for conscience is

essential and its protection should be granted for not only religious employers, but for all

employers, insurers, and policy issuers with moral, ethical, or religious objections as well.

Lauren L. Clement

3957 Peach Tree Court

New Orleans, LA 70131
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thanks!

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:59:01 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the co-pay of contraceptives.

It's about time our government treated women as equal citizens and took on their issues as more than a

side-concern. Now how about that ERA? ;). Please, Ms. Sebelius, keep up the important work and take

action knowing your sisters' hopes for a better future are behind them.

Sincerely,

S. Braunger
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0036 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-142-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
5/20/2011 8:55 AM at 8:55 AM

1 

### Steve Edris

From: Carl Steele Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:43 PM To: Alan Siepker; Amy ODonnell; Austin Hess; Cori Groni nger; Dan Wakefield; Eric Ryder; Fred Layne; Garry Mulkey; Gary Cooper; Heath Clark; Jaso n Parrett; Jay Parrett; John Hight; John Hight; Kevin Thompson; Kim Driscoll; Michael Castro ; Steve Edris Subject: Shift Summary's

# 2 The cupola ran fair , the urea hose had came ap art in the #2 hoffman blower room , that’s why we w ere not getting any urea. We had a plug up on the turning belts due to # 9 belt coming off. The screen is not staying clean at all , we have washed it about 7 times.we kept the windbox and rol lers blown out, the high resin binder is making the rollers build up.We had 2.37 tons of side piece throw away.

# 4 The cupola has ran fair today with no major problems

We did not change any bags today
EXHIBIT 23.1















                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  V  Band   Corporation's
Registration Statements Nos. 2-94923, 33-7540, 33-19146 and 33-62458 on Form S-8
of our  report  dated  December  17,  1997  (January  31,  1998 as to Note 4 and
February 9, 1998 as to Note 5)  appearing  on page F-1 of the Annual  Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 1997.





/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
February 11, 1998
From: larrythill4@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:42:41 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,

Lawrence Thill

Berwyn, IL 60402
# **Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

Each of the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

This 9thday of August, 2004.

 

 
|  /s/  Douglas K. Freeman         |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                                  |
|                                  |
|  /s/  Steven F. Herbert          |   |
|                                  |
| Chief Financial Executive             |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of the Appraisal, Under the Transfer Tax Acts, of the Property of Adeline B. Spring, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

February, 1912.)

Taxes — Inheritance and transfer taxes — Property and interest sub-' ■ ject to tax.

Where assignments of mortgages to a mother and a daughter provided in some instances that the survivor of them should become the absolute owner of said securities and that neither should have the power to affect the rights of the other, and in other instances that the securities should be held by the assignees and the survivor of them, the interest which the daughter took in one-half of the securities upon the death of her mother is subject to a transfer tax.

Appeal from an order imposing a transfer tax.

Lyon &. Smith (Edward P. Lyon, of counsel,) for executrix.

Harry Howard Dale, for State Comptroller.

Ketgham, S.

The executrix appeals from the order imposing a transfer tax upon the transfer of a half interest in ten mortgages, which will be described.

These mortgages were assigned to the decedent and her daughter, by • instruments which contained provisions, in some instances, that the survivor of the two assignees should become the absolute'owner of the bond and mortgage and that neither should have the power to affect the rights of-the last survivor, and, in other instances, that the securities *587assigned would' be held by the parties of the second part and the survivor of them.

The executrix claims that the transfer to these two persons jointly, with right of survivorship, vested the title in the survivor and that, on the death of one, the title of the survivor related back to the date of the original transfer.

It is of no importance to consider whether or not these transfers bestowed title or ownership at the time when the mortgages were assigned.

If the claim of the executrix in .this respect were conceded the transfers would, nevertheless, be taxable under the expressions of the statute.

It is apparent that the decedent, under the several^ as-' signments, received a right, at least equal to that of her associate assignee, to collect interest .upon the mortgages. While it does not affirmatively appear, the presumption must be that each of the assignees reserved the right to interest on one-half of the investment. Hence, as to the one-half of the securities involved in this discussion, the decedent held an interest which can be likened to an intermediate estate for her own life; and the daughter (the other assignee) took a remainder which, under the language of the Tax Law, was a transfer *“*intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment ” upon the death of the decedent. Matter of Green, *153*H. T. *223;*Matter of Brandretk, 169 id. 437; Matter of Cornell, 170 id. 423; Matter of Keeney, 194 id. 281.

Order appealed from affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**SECTION 302**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Judith A. Berry, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of AmericanResidential Investment Trust, Inc.;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

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

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 14, 2003   |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Judith A. Berry     |   |
| Judith A. Berry         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----