alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19833]



[[Page 63149]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 7, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 7 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-264, CP2023-267.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-19833 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: jimjo1965@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:40 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,

Jo Ann Gross

Pride, LA 70770
From: figannie2002@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:51:43 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,

Ana Figueroa

Orlando, FL 32814
No. 197.

#### Wycoff Company, Inc., *v.*Public Service Commission of Utah et al.

*Zar E. Hayes*and *Calvin L. Ramp-ton*for petitioner.

*A. Pratt Kesler,*Attorney General of Utah, *Raymond W. Gee,*Assistant Attorney General, *Keith E. Sohm*and *Wood R. Worsley*for respondents.

Supreme Court of Utah. Certiorari denied.
From: alnuckols@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lacy Nuckols

Katy, TX 77449
No. 43, Misc.

#### Powell *v.*Boles, Warden.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*C. Donald Robertson,*Attorney General of West Virginia, and *George H. Mitchell*and *Andrew J. Goodwin,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Certiorari denied.
No. 65969.

#### Shell Oil Company *v.*United States,

protests 59/25195, etc. (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cutback asphalt the same in all material respects as that the subject of *American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2188), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: nicole.maloy@Gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:20:36 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,

Nicole Sturgeon

Birmingham, AL 35243
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund  VI,  L.P.,  Series 6 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarter  ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I, Thomas J. Riha,
Senior  Vice-President  and Chief Financial  Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,
general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.        The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  such  provisions  require  the  audit  report  of Local  Limited
          Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of
          the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board for the  Partnership's
          annual financial statements; and

2.        The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.



/s/Thomas J. Riha
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 15, 2008
From: caseyb@archspm.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:55 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,

Bill Casey

Saint Paul, MN 55102
From: jeanniewilgus@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:07:10 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,

Jeannie Wilgus

Rochester, MI 48309
EXHIBIT
 32(b)



CERTIFICATION
 OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
 TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
 connection with the report on Form 10-Q ofWWA
 Group, Inc. for thequarterly
 period endedMarch 31,
 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
 Commission on the date hereof, I,Digamber Naswa, do
 hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
 best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant
for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:May
 14, 2009





/s/
 Digamber Naswa

Digamber
 Naswa

Chief
 Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant
 and will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 24.2

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Tristar Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-45396 and 333-26567) on Form S-8 of Ross Cosmetics Distributions Centers,
Inc. and Tristar Corporation, respectively, of our report dated December 11,
1996, relating to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year ended August 31, 1996, and the related
schedule, which report appears in the August 29, 1998, annual report on Form
10-K of Tristar Corporation.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

San Antonio, Texas
December 4, 1998
From: Diana S. Roche

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 11:26:40 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be

forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in

order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable

demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of

conscience.

Diana S Roche

Spring, TX
#### Levi L. Brown and others, Respondents, v. Lewis May, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

— Order reversed, order entered as directed in opinion, costs and disbursements to abide event. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial statements for the three months ended September 30, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                          44,980
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                203,464
<PP&E>                                          170,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,167,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           924,962
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        5,720
<OTHER-SE>                                      5,355,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,167,650
<SALES>                                         93,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,631
<CGS>                                           13,711
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                612,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (532,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (532,464)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)



</TABLE>
#### Edward Laska, Respondent, *v.*Charles K. Harris, Appellant.

*Laska*v. Harris, 154 App. Div. 932, appeal dismissed.

(Argued February 24, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court-in the first judicial department, entered January 3, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the alleged breach of a contract of employment.

The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was unauthorized, the affirmance by the Appellate Divi*751sion having been unanimous, and permission to appeal not having been obtained.

*George Boochever*for motion.

*Adolph H. Rosenfeld*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
No. 65111.

#### Benthan, Ltd., and American Shipping Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 152960-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim at 22% percent under paragraph 397, as modified by T.D. 51802, was sustained. The items marked “E,” stipulated to be the same as the merchandise involved in said Abstract 62036, except that they are plated with gold, were held dutiable at 32% percent under said paragraph 397, as modified by T.D. 51802, supplemented by T.D. 51909.