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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Initial Review Group; Career Development Education and Training Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         November 2-3, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sindhu Kizhakke Madathil, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Research, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH 301, North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-5702,                         *sindhu.kizhakkemadathil@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 12, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst,  Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20107 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1290

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preempt State laws requiring

a certificate of approval or other form of approval prior to the construction or operation of certain airport development projects, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 1, 2001

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preempt State

laws requiring a certificate of approval or other form

of approval prior to the construction or operation of

certain airport development projects, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘End Gridlock at Our

5 Nation’s Critical Airports Act of 2001’’.
2

•S 1290 IS

1 SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REQUIRING AP2 PROVAL OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

3 PROJECTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 401 of title 49, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing:

7 ‘‘§ 40129. Preemption of State laws requiring ap8 proval of airport development projects

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No State, political subdivision of

10 a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may

11 enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision hav12 ing the force and effect of law that—

13 ‘‘(1) requires a certificate of approval or other

14 form of approval prior to the construction or oper15 ation of an airport development project at a covered

16 airport if the project meets the standards established

17 by the Secretary of Transportation under section

18 47105(b)(3), whether or not the project is the sub19 ject of a grant approved under chapter 471; or

20 ‘‘(2) prohibits, conditions, or otherwise regu21 lates the direct application for, or receipt or expendi22 ture of, a grant or other funds by the sponsor of a

23 covered airport under chapter 471 for an airport de24 velopment project at a covered airport if the project

25 meets the standards referred to in paragraph (1).
3

•S 1290 IS

1 ‘‘(b) COVERED AIRPORT DEFINED.—In this section,

2 the term ‘covered airport’ means an airport that each year

3 has at least .25 percent of the total annual boardings in

4 the United States.’’.

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for

6 such chapter is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new item:

‘‘40129. Preemption of State laws requiring approval of airport development

projects.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form  S‐3  (Nos.  333-170652 and 333-173364) of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation of our report  dated February 19, 2013 except with respect to our opinion on the consolidated financial statements insofar as it relates to the change in reportable segments discussed in Note 14, the revisions discussed in Note 1, and disclosure of the offsetting of derivative assets and liabilities presented in Note 8, as to which the date is September 27, 2013, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 27, 2013.














/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Peoria, Illinois


September 27, 2013
#### VITORATOS *v.*WALSH, MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK.

No. 507, Misc.

Decided November 19, 1962.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: Bob Haag

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Conscience Protection absent in new regulations regarding Contraceptive coverage.

Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:46:50 AM

 Hi, My name is Judy Haag, I am from MN and a nurse in Long Term Care. I am shocked at the

disregard of conscience protection in the new regulations regarding Contraceptive coverage. I want

the HHS, under the leadership of its secretary Kathleen Sebelius to receive the following message:

 Pregnancy is NOT a disease to be prevented and contraception should not be a mandated

“preventative health service”. Respect for conscience is foundational to a just society. At a

minimum a robust conscience protection should be granted, not only for all religious employers, but

also for all employers, insurers, and policy issuers with moral, ethical, or religious objections. 

 I pray that everyone involved in this kind of decision making will be opened to “THE TRUTH” about

the beginning of “HUMAN LIFE”. With the clarity of Ultrasounds these days, how can we be so blind

not to know we are killing our youngest USA citizens!!!!!! Judy Haag judy4life@meltel.net
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE0 4360A150
From: srh0286@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Pregnancy is not a disease. Contraceptives are actually quite harmful to womens' health, putting them

at risk for blood clots, heart attacks and stroke, when most of the women who are taking it are

perfectly healthy. In addition to these health concerns that everybody should be worried about, many

people have religious objections to these services. Our choice shouldn't be follow the law or follow our

religious beliefs. That is oppression.

I am asking 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,

Sarah Angus

Mount Pleasant, MI 48858
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata

WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AND INS. CO. OF THE STATE OF PA. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1169-14-4 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 12, 2014 ATIA ELYASS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Dennis Boyd Cook; Midkiff, M uncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (W. David Falcon; Chasenboscolo Injury Lawyers, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Washington Dulles International and Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. (collectively “employer”) appeal the decision of the Work ers’ Compensation Comm ission (“commission”) awarding Atia Elyass (“claimant”) temporary to tal disability benefits from January 3 through January 7, 2012 and finding that employer failed to establish the doctrine of res judicata barred the award. On appeal, employer argues that on August 17, 2012, a deputy commissioner determined claimant failed to prove an injury by accident, claimant did not request review of the order, claimant subsequently filed an additional claim, the claim was identical to the one denied by the August 17, 2012 order, and the doctrine of re s judicata barred further litigation of the

claim. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Elyass v. Washington Dulles Int’l, JCN 00000786796 (May 28, 2014). WeUNPUBLISHED- 2 - dispense with oral argument and summarily affi rm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
#### J. H. Rambo, alias Coombs, alias Keenan, v. The State.

No. 2381.

Decided October 30, 1901.

Perjury—Affidavit Before County Attorney.

An affidavit made before the county attorney in a prosecution for a misdemeanor can be used as the proper basis upon which to predicate a charge of perjury.

'Appeal from the District Court of Ellis. Tried below before Hon. J. E. Dillard.

Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts in the record.

No brief on file for appellant.

*BoVt A.*John, Assistant Attorney-General for the State.

HENDEBSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of perjury, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary; hence this appeal.

It is assigned as error that the written instrument, which was a complaint made by appellant charging an aggravated assault to have been committed by one W. C. Mitchell upon Ada Mitchell, in proper form, made before Lee Hawkins, county attorney of Ellis County, could not be made the predicate of perjury. An affidavit of this character is authorized by law to be taken by county attorneys in the prosecution of misdemeanors. Articles 34, 35, Code Crim. Proc.; Thomas v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 142. Such an affidavit is the beginning of a judicial procedure, and the oath is required by law as the basis for the prosecution. Such oath so taken comes within our statute defining perjury (article 303, Penal Code). Langford v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 283. This is not like the case of Davidson v. State, 22 Texas Criminal Appeals, 373. In that case the affidavit was simply a voluntary affidavit in order to procure a marriage license, and was not in the course of any judicial proceeding. We have examined the indictment, and, in our opinion, it sufficiently charges the offense. The charge of the court is pertinent to a state of facts provable thereunder. The record contains no statement of facts.

There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  502                                                                   Trade Date:  11/01/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   11/04/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementNovember 01, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QWX5  4.25%        11/15/13        100%                1.55%              Semi-Annually               YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$741,000.00            $729,514.50            ABN AMROInc.        05/15/05               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $217.934 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19718]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

10 CFR Part 1709

[Docket No. DNFSB-2023-01]


Debt Collection Procedures

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is 
confirming the effective date of October 10, 2023, for the direct final 
rule that was published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2023.

DATES: The effective date of October 10, 2023, for the direct final 
rule published on July 11, 2023, (88 FR 44031), is confirmed.

ADDRESSES: DNFSB's General Counsel web page: Go to https://www.dnfsb.gov/office-general-counsel and click ``Federal Register 
Notices'' to access publicly available information related to this 
rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Hargrave, Associate 
General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana 
Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 30, 2021 (88 FR 44031), the DNFSB 
published a direct final rule to implement the Debt Collection Act 
(DCA), as amended, 31 U.S.C. 3701, et seq. The DCA governs the federal 
government's debt collection activities. In accordance with this law, 
the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice jointly 
promulgated Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), 31 CFR parts 
900 through 904. Agencies may adopt the FCCS without change or may 
prescribe agency regulations for collecting debts by administrative 
offset that are consistent with the FCCS. 31 U.S.C. 3716. These 
regulations are required before an agency may collect a debt by 
administrative offset.
    In the direct final rule, the DNFSB stated that, if no significant 
adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become 
effective on October 11, 2023. The DNFSB received one comment. The 
DNFSB evaluated the comment against the criteria described in the 
direct final rule and determined that the comment was not significant 
and adverse. Specifically, the commentator stated that the rule would 
be ``great'' due to ``the added measure of structure and accountability 
that will result from this rule.'' The comment was positive and 
supportive. The direct final rule will become effective as scheduled.

    Dated: September 7, 2023.
Joyce Connery,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2023-19718 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
JORGE MORENO , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0262 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No s

. CR1999

- 011811 CR1996

- 013572 CR1999

- 009096 The Honorable Jennifer E. Green , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent
Jorge Moreno , Florence Petitioner FILED 12-13-2022STATE v. MORENO Decisi on of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma , Judge Cynthia J. Bailey , and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Jorge Moreno seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Moreno’ s sixth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not distur b a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. S ee S tate v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to show that the superior court erred in denying the petition for post

conviction relief. See State v. P oblete , 227 Ari z. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011)

. ¶3 This court has reviewed the record in this matter, the order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief and the petition for review. This court finds t he petitioner has not established error

. ¶4 This court grants review but den ies relief.
From: dan@morgancityrentals.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:57:49 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,

Dan Brown

Morgan City, LA 70380