alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: whs803@hctc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:44:56 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,

Howard Spear

Shelton, WA 98584
OSWER/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460


## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)
***Proposed Site *** September 2015 

### LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET Roswell, New Mexico Chaves County

 **Site Location :**  The site is located near the intersection of Lea Street and West Second Street in Roswell, New Mexico

.

 **Site History:** The Lea and West Second Street site consists of a ground water plume of chlorinated solvents originat ing from known and unknown sources in Roswell, New Mexico. The four sources include two areas of contaminated soil associated with former dry cleaning operations, contamination associated with an in

- ground concrete separator tank previously removed and a contaminated ground water plume

.
 **Site Contamination/Contaminants:** Soil and ground water is contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, cis -1,2- dichloroethene and trans

1,2- dichloroethene. These contaminants were found at concentrations greater than the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

.

 **Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment :**  An estimated 48,611 residents in Roswell receive drinking water from ground water. This population is potentially affected by the contaminants found as a result of historical industrial operations which occurred at the site.

 **Response Activities (to date):** In 2009 the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) removed an in

- ground tank connected to the sanitary sewer system from one of the former dry cleaners tenant spaces

.

 **Need for NPL Listing:**
The NMED referred the site to the EPA due to the chlorinated solvent plume, use of ground water for drinking and the presence of geologic conditions favorable for migration of contaminants. Without identification and investigation of the source of ground water contamination and remediation of the contaminated ground water plume additional public and private wells may be threatened. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, but are not viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the state of New Mexico

.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1 991, or subsequent FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1

- 888

- 42

- ATSDR or 1

- 888

- 422

- 8737.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE CHAMBERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:94-cr-00089-JRS-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

George Chambers appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See United States v. Chambers , No. 3:94-

cr-00089-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. June 19, 2008). 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: nhmegan@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:23 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,

Megan MacMullin

Concord, NH 03301
#### Eames Vacuum Brake Company, Respondent, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin P. J.
(R.D. 11475)

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 891874-1/2, etc.

(Decided January 24, 1968)

*Barnes, Richardson d Colburn (Norman C. Schwarts of*counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General {Dominio7c *M. Minerva,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation between counsel for the respective parties:

> Mr. SgiiwaRtz : On R63/3161, 34r-T? the appeal is abandoned with regard to the Pipe Companions. That eliminates one class.

> Judge Watson : That is 3T-T ?

> Mr. Schwartz: Yes, one invoice covering an item described as Pipe Companions. The appeal is abandoned as to that merchandise on that invoice. The appeal is still open as far as the other invoice is concerned. There is another invoice covering cigarette lighters in the same entry.

> *766Now, with, regard to the cigarette lighters with or without other words of description, covered by reappraisement R63/3161, 34-T, re-appraisement R64/23699, calendar number 42-T, reappraisement R65/ 18, that is 43-T, reappraisement R66/439, which is 54-T, reappraisement R65/14725, which is 48-T, and reappraisement R66/6259, which is 61-T, I offer to stipulate that the export value, as defined in Section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is equal to the invoice unit value, exclusive of any charges added thereto by the Appraiser over and above the invoice unit price.

> MR. Minerva : The Government will stipulate that the correct dutiable value is the invoice unit value.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is equal to the invoice unit value.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID WEAVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00102-BO) Submitted: July 25, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Weaver appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to sixty months’ imprisonment. We affirm. We note that while the sentence Weaver received is above the advisory sentencing guideline range of eighteen to twenty-four months, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2006), it is within the applicable statutory maximum sentence. Moreover, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory factors and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline range. We therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). We further grant the Government’s motion to strike Weaver’s reply brief. 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
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    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 of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of National and Regional 
Research Resources.
    Date: November 6, 2023.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Marc Rigas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institutes of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institute of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3AN18C, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-827-0648, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98f5f9eafbb6eaf1fff9ebd8f6f1f0b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="670a06150449150e00061427090e0f49000811">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.859, 
Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20749 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of AGY Holding Corp. (the Company), does hereby certify
that to the undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 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 the
Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Douglas J. Mattscheck            
|Douglas J. Mattscheck                
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|(Principal Executive Officer)        
|                                     
|Dated: March 31, 2010                

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AGY Holding Corp. and will be retained by AGY Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### F. Minerva Shepard, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Gardner D. Mercer, Appellant

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
From: jaydiannemoyers@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:59:49 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,

Jack Moyers

Littleton, CO 80122
Case No. 13,475.

#### In re STOKES.

[1 N. B. R. 489 (Quarto, 130); 1 Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 122.) 2

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 17, 1868.

Bankruptcy — Motion to Set Aside Assignee— By Whom Heard — Notice.

A motion on the part of the bankrupt to set aside the appointment of assignee can only be entertained by the district judge upon notice, and not by the register.

[In the matter of Edward S. Stokes, a bankrupt.)

I, Edgar Ketchum. one of the registers in said court of bankruptcy, do hereby certify that in the course of the proceedings in said cause before me, the following question arose pertinent to the said proceedings, and was stated and agreed to by the counsel for the opposing parties, to wit: Mr. John Winslow who appeared for the bankrupt, and Mr. G. A. Seixas who appeared for Jenk Budlong, and Jenk Budlong & Co., creditors of the said bankrupt. These creditors attended on the 13th of March, the day fixed in the warrant for the first meeting of creditors, and duly proved, and filed proofs of their claims, and chose James Davis assignee, who was then appointed by the judge. The attorney for the bankrupt aft-erwards, and on the 19th of March, attended, supposing that to be the day for the first meeting of creditors, and then obtained the register’s order for the creditors to show cause why the appointment of assignee should not be set aside, and the bankrupt be allowed to prove that he was not indebted to those creditors. The creditors showed cause and insisted that only the judge upon notice could entertain this motion, and upon hearing in open court, or after a reference to take the testimony, this application not being unopposed, and so not being chamber business,- such as the register, under the rules and orders, might hear and direct. 1 was of opinion that the objection on the part of the creditors was well taken, and the counsel for the bankrupt then asked to have the question certified to the court, and written points on both sides were after-wards filed, which I transmit with this paper.

2

 [Reprinted from 1 N. B. R. 489 [Quarto, 130), by permission. 1 Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 122, contains only a partial report.)

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The register is correct in his views. The clerk will certify this decision to the register, Edgar Ketchum, Esq.
From: h.tanner@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Harold Tanner

Odessa, TX 79763