alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 02-226

________________________________________________________________________

ATOMIC ENERGY

Safety

Agreement Between the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and RUSSIA

Agreement signed at Washington and Moscow January 31

and February 26, 2002

Extending the agreement of June 30, 1995
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent

evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof

or authentication thereof.”
RUSSIA

Atomic Energy: Safety

Agreement signed at Washington and Moscow January 31 and

 February 26, 2002;

 Extending the agreement of June 30, 1995; 

 Entered into force February 26, 2002.
#### Mary L. Warth et al., Respondents, *v.*Martin Herman, Appellant.

*Warth*v. Herman, 144 App. Div. 943, affirmed.

(Argued December 18, 1912;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 12, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property.

*Selden Bacon*and *Saul S. Myers*for appellant.

*William Allaire Shortt*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on-opinion of Burr, J., in *Bardes*v. *Herman*(144 App. Div. 772).

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
  a.
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company at March 31, 2007, and the results of the Companys operations for the period ended March 31, 2007.
 May 10, 2007
    
    /s/ STEVEN P. DUSSEK

Steven P. DussekChief Executive Officer and Director(principal executive officer)
From: blakethoele@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:19:27 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,

Blake Thoele

Clarendon Hills, IL 60514
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 580 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 229
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 580

                          [Report No. 107-739]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 10, 2002

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. The 
joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

                                                 House Calendar No. 229

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 580

                          [Report No. 107-739]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 10, 2002

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0052.html[8/29/2011 2:37:40 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeb128

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-0052

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Address: CA

General Comment

I object to the narrowness of the religious exemption. It would seem to apply only to churches and

other houses of worship, but not to other religious organizations or employers who consider the use

of "morning after" or other abortion pills equivalent to murder.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         101,911
<SECURITIES>                                   157,680
<RECEIVABLES>                                  34,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,252
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,569
<PP&E>                                         39,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 418,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          84,841
<BONDS>                                        300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    93
<COMMON>                                       48
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   418,517
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,168
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  36,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               18,249
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (3.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.98)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240-24b-2

 

Statement of Work

 

To the Agreement between RADIUS HEALTH, INC. (“RADIUS”) and LONZA Sales AG dated 16 of October 2007

 

Supplemental analytical services

 


	
Number
    	
 
    	
RDS-001-SC003
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Product Code/Name
    	
 
    	
RDS-001 Abaloparatide
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Description of the proposed change
    	
 
    	
Supplemental services requested by Radius:

1)             Concentration   testing with FG2 on 10 samples from Bioagilytix

2)             Reissue   CoA of reference standard 8AK1R data with current TG2/FG2 and M-076 methods
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Price Agreed
    	
 
    	
1.              [*]€

2.              [*]€

 

Total: [*]€
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Radius
    	
 
    	
Name: Naveen Palwai
    
   Signature: /s/ Naveen Palwai
    	
 
    	
Date: 02/03/2016
    
	
Radius
    	
 
    	
Name: Wajiha Khan
    
   Signature: /s/ Wajiha Khan
    	
 
    	
Date: 02/03/2016
    
	
Lonza Sales AG
    	
 
    	
Name: Paul Tastenhoye
    
   Signature: /s/ Paul Tastenhoye
    	
 
    	
Date: 29/01/2016
    
	
Lonza Sales AG
    	
 
    	
Name: Frederique Mutterer
    
   Signature: /s/ Frederique Mutterer
    	
 
    	
Date: 29/01/2016
    




 

Additional notes: /

 




[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

1











 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240-24b-2

 

Detailed description of the proposed change

 

Activity 1: Concentration testing with FG2 on 10 samples from Bioagilytix + issue of an official test report.

Activity 2: Reissue CoA of reference standard 8AK1R data with current TG2/FG2 and M-076 methods

 

Timescale

 

By February 5th 2016

 

Price and Terms of Payment

 

1. Price

 

·              Activity 1: [*]€

·               Activity 2: [*]€

·               Total price: [*]€

 

2.              Payment

 

100% upon completion

 

oooOOOooo

 




[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

2
No. 62, Misc.

#### Lieberman *v.*Ohio.

Supreme Court of Ohio. Certiorari denied.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

95-30087

CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATIVE,

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(91-CV-1091)

(September 29, 1995)

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM *

In this appeal from the district court's grant of a

preliminary injunction in favor of Defendant-Appellee Gulf States

Utilities Company, we h ave now reviewed the applicable facts and

law as presented to us by able counsel in their outstanding briefs

and in their oral arguments before the court, and have deliberated

on the pertinent points raised in this appeal within the framework2

of the long-standing, multi-faceted litigation that continues

between the parties and others in the district court. As a result,

we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in granting the subject injunction, and we therefore

AFFIRM
Appendix 7 Acute Impacts Refined Analysis FiguresRefined Acute Modeling Approach

Initial acute screening risk calculation s were performed with the HEM-3 model. HEM-3 estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block receptors. It is assumed for this short period of time that an exposed individual coul d be located at any off-site location. The lack of readily av ailable detailed property boundary information for many of the facilities evaluated made it difficult to determine whether receptors were

on- or off-site. In the absence of such info rmation, the first ring of polar receptors was placed 100 meters from the plant center for ma ny facilities. However, these polar rings

often transected on-site locati ons, restricting public access to exposures at these levels and thereby overestimating exposures.

The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour exposures also likely overestimates. To estimate ma ximum 1-hour concentrati ons at each receptor,

HEM-3 sums the maximum concentrations at tributed to each source, regardless of

whether those maximum concentrations occurr ed during the same hour. In other words, HEM-3 assumes that the maximum impact from each source at each receptor occurs at the same time. In actuality, maximum imp acts from different sources may occur at

different times.

This appendix includes the results of refined acute assessments performed for

facilities that exceeded short-term health benchmarks using the HEM-3 approach. The

refinements can address both areas of cons ervatism described above. The simplest refinement is to plot the HE M-3 polar grid results on aerial photographs of the facilities;

This allows the assessment of off-site loca tions that may be accessible to the public ( e.g., roadways and public buildings.). In cases wh ere this refinement results in lower acute

risks no further refinement was conducted. Howeve r, if acute risk sti ll remain at or near

levels of concern a further refinement is conducted. This second refinement includes remodeling with the AERMOD model directly (instead of using HEM) to estimate maximum 1-hour concentrations at each recepto r by pairing individual source impacts in time and space. The AERMOD results are then plotted on aerial photographs as noted above to determine off-site impacts. Modeling with AERMOD also allows the estimation of the frequency of higher impacts at or above the health levels of concern. The attached figures present the estimated hazard quotient values (the modeled 1-hour concentration of a pollutant divided by its sh ort-term health benchmark) at the polar receptors near the facilities. Each set of figures is pref aced with a description of the maximum off-site hazard quotient va lue and where that value occurs.Polybutadiene RubberProduction Facilities:• Figure 1 - NEI32876; maximum offsiteacute HQ for toluene of 1.40 to thesoutheast of facilityFigure 1 – NEI32876 Acute Toluene HQ (REL)
From: wereitz@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:51 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,

Willard Reitz

Canonsburg, PA 15317
Page 1 of 1 Meeting Summary: EPA/Agriphar

October 13, 2011, 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Room S-8671, 2777 S. Crysta l Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

Non-EPA Agriphar: Bert Volger, Eric Andreas

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs: Tim Leighton, Nader Elkassabany, Michelle Centra, Najm Shamim, Lance Wormell, Rebecca von dem Hagen Office of General Council: Mark Dyner

Summary On Thursday October 13, 2011, members of EPA’s DGH reregistration team hosted a meeting with Agriphar, a technical regist rant for DGH and Dodine, to discuss data compensation for studies that EPA used to support the DGH and Dodine reregistration eligibility decisions. The meeting was he ld at Agriphar’s request and included the registrant’s overview/histor y of the DGH/Dodine data compensation issue and its rationale for why Agriphar believes it may be entitled to data compensation. Agriphar also requested during the meeting that EPA provide data evaluation records for several Agriphar studies.

Next Steps The Agency will review Agriphar’s rationale and continue to explore options for addressing the regist rant’s concerns.
#### R. Nelson Gere, Plaintiff, v. The Syracuse Iron Works, Defendant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Hardin, P. J.
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.                  

###### Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

# AGENCY:

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).

# ACTION:

Notice of senior executive service performance review board.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is issuing this notice to inform the public of the names of the members of the Agency's Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.

# DATES:

This SES Performance Review Board is effective September 12, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anna Davis, General Counsel, 202-606-3737,                         *ogc@fmcs.gov,*                         250 E St. SW, Washington, DC 20427.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Sec. 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The members of FMCS's Performance Review Board are:

                        1. Adrienne Adger, Acting Human Resource                               ( print page 62573)                            Director (Chair and non-voting member), Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service                    

2. Javier Ramirez, Deputy Director, Field Operations, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

3. Marla Hendrickkson, External Career SES member, Food and Drug Administration

4. Cynthia Washington, Director of Procurement, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

5. Beth Schindler, Associate Deputy Director, Field Operations, Regional, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Dated: September 6, 2023.

Anna Davis,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2023-19605 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6732-01-P