alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: carole_simone@instron.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:03:05 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,

Carole Simone

, 02091
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–570 PDF 2016

[ERRATA] 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

Serial No. 114–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
[ERRATA] 

An error was made on the cover of Hearing: U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year. The year 2016 

was left out of the title. The title should be read as: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2016. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
From: pagegirl@canby.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:24:35 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,

Glenda Page

Canby, OR 97013
No. 258, Misc.

#### Aarons *v.*Washington Sheraton Corp. et al.

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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Initial Review Group, Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Study Section, October 26, 2023, 10:00 a.m. to October 27, 2023, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 1, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 14, 2023, FR Doc 2023-19907, 88 FR 63115.                

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Initial Review Group, Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Study Section meeting is being amended due to a change of the meeting time formats. The meeting will be held on October 26, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to October 27, 6:00 p.m. This meeting will be a video assisted meeting, and closed to the public.

Dated: September 18, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20491 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

$2,000,000,000

# CAT FINANCIAL POWERINVESTMENTSM

# VARIABLE DENOMINATION FLOATING RATE DEMAND NOTES

Registration No.  333-114075

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  1       

  (To Prospectus dated October 20,2005)                                                                                        

The Date of this Pricing SupplementNovember 01, 2005

 

                The Cat Financial PowerInvestmentSM Variable Denomination Floating Rate Demand Notes (the “Notes”) bearinterest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Cat Financial PowerInvestment Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis to be effective on the following Monday. Currently, the interest rates payable on the Notes vary based on the principal amount of theNotes that an investor owns.

                The current Registration Statement for the Notes (No. 333-114075) was declared effective on October 26, 2005. As of that date, theinterest rates on the Notes were as follows:

Principal Amount of Notes                 Interest Rate Per Annum

Owned by an Investor

$0-$4,999.99                                          3.40%     Yield

                                                               3.35%     Rate

$5,000-$49,999.99                                 3.66%     Yield

                                                               3.60%     Rate

$50,000 and above                               3.92%    Yield

                                                               3.85%     Rate

****
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Page 84 of 169

73496 Canola

Table 26. List of Species with Reports of Hand-Pollinated or Spontaneous Hybridization with 

B. napus

Species Namea Crop Weed 

Classificationb

Hand Pollination 

(successes:failures)c

Spontaneous and

Natural 

Hybridizationc

Presence in 

Winter 

Canola 

Growing

Areasd

Presence 

in Spring 

Canola 

Growing 

Areasd B.napus

as Male

B.napus

as 

Female

B.napus

as Male

B.napus

as 

Female

Brassica carinata  X 4:1 7:0 Brassica elongata    

Brassica fruticulosa  0:1 1:1  X 

Brassica juncea   25:1 13:4     

Brassica nigra   2:2 4:2 X X   

Brassica oleracea  X 3:11 9:17  X   

Brassica rapa   55:8 84:0     

Brassica tournefortii  0:1 1:1  X 

Camelina sativa  X 0:1 0:1   

Capsella bursapastoris  0:1 0:1   

Coincya monensis    

Conringia orientalis  0:1 0:1   

Diplotaxis erucoides X 1:1   

Diplotaxis muralis  3:0 1:1   

Diplotaxis siifolia X 0:3 0:1 X X 

Diplotaxis tenuifolia  0:3 1:1   

Eruca vesicaria 

(E.sativa)  2:0   

Erucastrum gallicum  0:1 1:0 X   

Hirschfeldia incana  1:2 1:2    X 

Moricandia arvensis X 0:2 0:2 X X 

Myagrum perfoliatum X 0:1 0:1  X 

Raphanus 

raphanistrum  0:4 3:2     

Raphanus sativus   1:5 1:2   

Rapistrum rugosum  1:0   

Rorippa islandica  1:0 X X 

Sinapis alba   0:6 1:2 X   

Sinapis arvensis  1:10 5:8 X    

Sisymbrium irio  0:1 0:1  X 

Sisymbrium orientale    

 = Yes, to some degree

X = No

a Species highlighted in purple have at least one report of successful hybridization with B. napus b Weed Science Society of America or USDA NRCS list of noxious weeds

c Andersson and de Vicente, 2010; FitzJohn et al., 2007 d USDA PLANTS Database; Criteria to distinguish growing areas for winter and spring canola were 

obtained from Brown et al. (2008) and are summarized in the following section.

Blank cells = no data available
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D,C. 20460 

SEP 08 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Nitrapyrin (069203) 

FROM: 

THRU: 

TO: 

Monisha Kaul, Biologist m ~ / /l/ J J f 

Biological Analysis Branch ~ 

Sepehr Haddad, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Science Information and Analysis Branch 

John Faulkner, Economist 

Economic Analysis Branch .?vn 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Bran 

Diann Sims, Chief ;J/~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Timothy 

Economic Kiely, Analysis 

Chief 

Branch ~ 1AA. ~ 

Biological and Economic Analys' Division (7 3) 

Kelly Ballard, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1 

Pesticide Reevaluation Division (7508P) 

I"I-~ 

Product Review Panel date: July 6, 2010 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the pest 

management roles of pesticides that are beginning to undergo registration review. The 

anticipated audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status 

of nitrapyrin, and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data alr~ady 

provided in the "Usage and Label Use Data Packages" that are also provided to Registration 

1 
Review teams by BEAD. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as 

of June 29, 2011. 

Nitrapyrin [2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl) pyridine] is a nitrification inhibitor and soil bactericide. 

Nitrapyrin is used to delay nitrification of ammonia and urea nitrogen fertilizers to prevent the 

loss of nitrogen from soil by selectively inhibiting Nitrosomonas bacteria from converting 

ammonium to nitrite. 

USE SITES 

Nitrapyrin is used in com, sorghum, and wheat. There are no registered residential uses. 

COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Nitrapyrin is formulated as microencapsulated, soluble concentrate and emulsifiable concentrate. 

Application methods include soil band, soil broadcast and soil sidedress treatments. 

USAGE 

A review of available proprietary data and public data sources did not yield any information on 

the use of nitrapyrin for agricultural or non-agricultural uses. 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO NITRAPYRIN 

Nitrapyrin is a nitrogen stabilizer that is combined with fertilizers; it is not a substitute for 

fertilizer. Nitrapyrin may be applied to com, sorghum or wheat pre-plant or at-plant. Sidedress 

fertilizer applications containing nitrapyrin may be made to com up to 30 days after planting. 

HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR NITRAPYRIN 

No previous BEAD assessments were found in the BEAD database. 

2
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30660 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. C H A D WI C KD E N A R D C H I S H O L M , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 94- C R - 19- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * C hadw i c k D enar d C hi sho l m , fede r al pri so ner # 08652- 35, i s se r vi ng a 292- m on th sen ten ce for con sp i ra cyto po ss es s and pos se ss i on w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te c oc ai ne bas e. Ch i sho l m f i l ed a m ot i on, s t yl ed as a F ED . R. C IV . P . 60(b) m ot i on t o r eo pen hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 pr oc ee di n gs. Ch i sho l m ’ s § 2 255 m ot i on w as den i ed i n 199 7, bu th e s o u g h tt o reopen the m att er t o add ress an al l eged j u ri sdi ct i on aldefecti n t h e proceedi n g pu rsuan tt o G onz ale z v. C r os by , 545 U . S. 524, 531- 33 ( 2005) . The di st r i c tc our tc ons t r ued C hi sho l m ’ s pl eadi ng as an United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30660

2 u n au t h ori zed successive § 225 5 m ot i on an d d i sm i ssed th e m ot i on f or l ack of j ur i s di c t i o n. C hi sho l m ar gues t hat , be c ause t he i ndi c t m entagai nsth i m fai l ed t o a l l ege a dru g qu an t i t y, th e in d ic t m en tw as defect ive an d the di st ri ctcourtl acked j u ri sdi ct i on t o sentence hi m t o m ore t h an t h e 20-year s t atuto ry m a xi m u m set fort h i n 21 U . S . C . § 841(b) ( 1) ( C ) . Th i s s peci f i c argum en tconst i t u t es a new t h eory of

rel i ef. A l t h ou gh C h i shol m chal l en ged t h e adeq u acy of t h e di st ri ctcourt fact u al f

i n di n gs w i t h respect t o dru g qu an t i t y i n h i s § 225 5 m ot i o n , h e d id n ot r a is e th e s p e c ific a r g u m e n t h e a s s e r ts h e r e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no te r ri n c o ns t r ui ng hi s m o t i o n a s a n una ut ho r i z e d s uc c e s s ive § 2 25 5 m o t i o n. S ee G on zalez , 545 at531, 532 & nn. 4- 5. AF F I RMED.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 132

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that housing assistance provided under the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996 be treated for purposes of the low-income

housing credit in the same manner as comparable assistance.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 2001

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.

REID, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DASCHLE, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that housing assistance provided under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of

1996 be treated for purposes of the low-income housing

credit in the same manner as comparable assistance.

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 ‘‘Low Income Housing

5 Tax Credit for Native Americans Act’’.
2

•S 132 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE

2 DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING WHETHER

3 BUILDING IS FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED FOR

4 PURPOSES OF THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING

5 CREDIT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section

7 42(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

8 to determination of whether building is federally sub9 sidized) is amended—

10 (1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘or the Native

11 American Housing Assistance and Self-Determina12 tion Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) (as in ef13 fect on the date of the enactment of the Low Income

14 Housing Tax Credit for Native Americans Act)’’

15 after ‘‘this subparagraph)’’, and

16 (2) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting

17 ‘‘OR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE’’ after

18 ‘‘HOME ASSISTANCE’’.

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

21 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
From: jrdr@keyway.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Objection!

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:13 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,

John Roth

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
January 22 , 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAMIE ALBERTO IBARRA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00337

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 68375.

protests 62/7635, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Service Games (Nevada), Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*294Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of coin-operated slot machines and parts thereof which change the direction of force applied to them and do not have as an essential feature an electrical element or device, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gandhi Guzman, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 594]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered November 16, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the proposed identification testimony of the eyewitness. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic array was not suggestive and did not draw the viewer’s attention to the defendant’s photograph. There is no requirement that a defendant be sur*615rounded by individuals nearly identical to him in appearance during identification procedures *(see, People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336, *cert denied*498 US 833). The hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, found that the photographic array was not suggestive *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759), and its determination should not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record. Although it would have been better to have taken the defendant’s picture against a light background, it cannot be said that this difference tainted the photographic array *(see, People v Robert,*184 AD2d 597).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 155, Misc.

#### Duncan *v.*Holder, U. S. District Judge.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox*for respondent.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.