alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 207 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. DINGELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 

4 Commerce (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $22,474,614 for the One Hundred 

9 Tenth Congress. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 207 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $11,013,668 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2007, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2008; and 

7 (2) not more than $11,460,946 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2008, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2009. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141428

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141428 COA: 297606 Macomb CC: 07-000559-FC GJIN KOLBUCAJ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: stroupm@surewest.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:48:30 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,

Matthew Stroup

Roseville, CA 95678
Docket No. FAA-2013-0335
| **Fair Value Measurements  (Details 3) (Level 2, USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | Sep. 30, 2013 | Dec. 31, 2012 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| Level 2                                                                                          |          |          |
| **Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis**              |          |          |
| Fair value of impaired loans                                                                     | $ 109         | $ 117         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The fair value of impaired loans.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cfsc_FairValueOfImpairedLoans**Namespace Prefix:**cfsc_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_FairValueAssetsAndLiabilitiesMeasuredOnRecurringAndNonrecurringBasisLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
No. 61000.

protest 281136-K (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of leatherette cases for microscopes and is in chief value of wood, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: askuntz@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:38:48 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,

Andy Skuntz

Colorado Springs, CO 80922
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
May 30, 2006 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 03-4291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL J. MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 03 CR 138 James F. Holderman, Judge

.
O R D E R On August 25, 2005, we affirmed the district court’s calculation of Michael Murphy’s sentence, but ordered a limited remand under United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), directing the sentencing judge to consider whether he would impose the same sentence if he had known the guidelines were advisory. The district court judge examined the record along with statements submitted by counsel, and concluded that he would have reimposed the original sentence. Noting the many victims Murphy defrauded for large sums and the irreparable harm he caused, the district court cited to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), and concluded that UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 03-4291 Page 2 his “365-month sentence properly ‘reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law and provides just punishment for the offense.’” Both parties submitted arguments on the appropriate disposition of this appeal in light of the district court’s decision. We have considered those submissions and affirm because we conclude that Murphy’s sentence was reasonable. AFFIRMED.
No. 65169.

#### Samuel J. Kobe Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 220775-K (New York).

*344Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of knit fabrics and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:09:14 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,

Gerald Jordan

Bridgeport, TX 76426
From: axeman2415@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:47:06 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,

Will Rauser

Saint Pauls, NC 28384
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20879]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Global Infectious Disease Research 
Administration Development Award for Low-and Middle-Income Country 
Institutions (G11 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: October 27, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F36, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Noton K. Dutta, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F36, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-2857, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80eeeff4efeeaee4f5f4f4e1c0eee9e8aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="432d2c372c2d6d2736373722032d2a2b6d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20879 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>
From: josephmilch@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:09:21 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,

Joseph Milch

, 02368-5033
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,604,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               50,441,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,068,533
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,521,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 895,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,226,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                     32,313
<COMMON>                                    34,831,651
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,226,965
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,902,904
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,608,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,430,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               353,711
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,127,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                882,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   382,609
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

March 3, 1969

No. P69/56.

protests 66/61027, 67/65678, and 67/68858 (New York).

#### Corham Artificial Flower Co. *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables, grasses, or grains, and articles made of the foregoing, in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the merchandise the subject of *Armbee Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and *Zunold Trading Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

February 10, 1969

No. P69/35.

protest 66/72685 (New York).

#### Orientex, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of hanging paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Victor England Agencies, Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2394), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Williams, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 978]

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 12, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly adjudicated the defendant to be in violation of probation based upon his admission *(see, People v Lombardo,*108 AD2d 873; *People v Hunter,*194 AD2d 628). Furthermore, the court did *710not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for new counsel since the defendant failed to show good cause for a substitution *(see, People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822; *People v Nunez,*186 AD2d 764).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either improperly raised on this appeal or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.