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 Aging Special Emphasis Panel; AD Research Centers.                    

*Date:*                         November 17, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maurizio Grimaldi, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, RM: 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9374,                         *maurizio.grimaldi@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 20, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20748 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: shumes38@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:33:31 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,

Shirley Humes

Arnold, MO 63010
From: Charlotte Pirch

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Services

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:13:07 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as

pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law,

and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide

countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to

make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals

with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage

requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and

ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, John Slatky, certify that:



I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc.;

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

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a -15(e) and 15d -15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuers, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 11, 2005



/s/ John A. Slatky

John Slatky

Chief Executive Officer
### CMAS Facility Information **Nick Parsons** to: Cortney_Higgins 10/01/2012 12:37 PM Cc: Paul Versace, JohnB Chamberlin, Penny Lassiter Hi Cortney, Attached is a spreadsheet containing information on the CMAS facilities that have uncontrolled HAP emissions greater than 100 tpy. Thanks, Nick

CMAS 100tpy Synthetic Area Sources.xlsx
No. 61470.

#### Dynamo Tulle Importing Co. *v.*United States,

protests 231456-K, 213382-K, and 235270-K (New York).

Opinion by

Fobd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veils or veilings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: robolane@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:08:02 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,

Robert Lane

Benton, KS 67017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shalik Davis, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 191]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered September 23, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction in this one-witness identification case was against the weight of the evidence. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as weight of the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determinations should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). The complainant testified that he had seen the defendant around the neighborhood before, that he stood only a few inches from the defendant during the incident, which lasted three minutes, and that he was able to pick the defendant out of a police lineup. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

In addition, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see,*Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [b]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 of
Flurida Group, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Flurida
      Group, Inc.Dated:
      12/02/2010
              By:
              /s/ Jianfeng DingJianfeng
      DingChief
      Executive Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Flurida Group, Inc. and will
be retained by Flurida Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
From: dstrickland@spencerhines.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:25 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,

David Strickland

Inman, SC 29349
IV 

House Calendar No. 278 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1502 

[Report No. 110–887] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7060) to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and 

conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual 

income tax relief, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

Mr. ARCURI, 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 bill (H.R. 7060) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives 

for energy production and conservation, to extend certain 

expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 7060) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

4 provide incentives for energy production and conservation, 

5 to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1502 RH 

1 income tax relief, and for other purposes. All points of 

2 order against consideration of the bill are waived except 

3 those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall 

4 be considered as read. All points of order against the bill 

5 are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 

6 ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 

7 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

8 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

9 of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 

10 to recommit. 

11 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7060 pursuant 

12 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

13 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid14 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

15 the Speaker. 

16 SEC. 3. House Resolutions 1489 and 1501 are laid 

17 on the table. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 278 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1502 

[Report No. 110–887] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7060) 

other purposes. to provide individual income tax relief, and for servation, to extend certain expiring provisions, provide incentives for energy production and conto amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### Frances L. Waymon FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; H. David Bruton, Dr.; Lynda D. McDaniel, Director; James B. Upchurch, Chief; Cumberland County Department of Social Services; Philip Leary; Kathy Thomaseec, d/b/a Touch of Grace No. 2 Nursing Home; Wanda Shepherd, a/k/a Miss Smith; Carrol Walter Waymon, Brother of Plaintiff; John Ervin Waymon, a/k/a Joseph Spencer, Brother of Plaintiff; Carolle O. Waymon, a/k/a Carolle O. Spencer, a/k/a Ora C. Spencer, his wife; William Isaac Waddell, Jr., a/k/a Bill, Nephew of Plaintiff; Margaret Waddell, his wife; Rachel Ann Waddell Addison, Niece of Plaintiff; Susan J. Hall; David R. Hall, her husband; Clinton Wilburn, Dr., M.D.; Carmen Jean Battle, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2582.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 27, 2001.

Frances L. Waymon Fox, pro se.

June Seley Ferrell, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC; Douglas Edward Canders, Cumberland County Attorney’s Office, Steven Craig Lawrence, Anderson, Broadfoot, Johnson & Pittman, Susan Joyce Hall, David R. Hall, Carmen J. Battle, Fayetteville, NC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Frances L. Waymon Fox appeals the district court’s decision dismissing this diversity action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Fox v. North Carolina Dep’t of Health & Human Svcs.,*No. CA-00-319-5-H-2 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
From: r519@mindspring.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:43:31 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,

Richard Kottman

Mc Cook, NE 69001
Exhibit 3.2(b)
 
   1.
    
    The name of the limited partnership is


SMITH BARNEY WESTPORT FUTURES FUND L.P.If applicable, the original name under which it was formed is2.
    
    The Certificate of Limited Partnership was filed by the Department of State on 3/21/97.3.
    
    The address of CT Corporation System as the registered agent of said limited partnership is
hereby changed from CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 1633 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, NY 10019 to 111 Eighth
Avenue, New York, New York 10011.4.
    
    Notice of the above changes was mailed to the limited partnership by CT Corporation System
not less than 30 days prior to the date of delivery to the Department of State and such
limited partnership has not objected thereto.5.
    
    CT Corporation System is the registered agent of such limited partnership.
 CT CORPORATION SYSTEMBy:
    /s/ Kenneth J. UvaKenneth J. UvaVice President