alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0853]


Yogurt Products Deviating From Standard of Identity; Amendment of 
Temporary Marketing Permit

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) are amending 
Chobani, LLC's temporary permit to market test lower-fat yogurt 
products. The temporary permit is amended to allow the use of the test 
product as an ingredient in other nonstandardized food applications 
including drinkable beverages, dips, and sauces. This amendment will 
allow the applicant to continue to test market the test product, as 
ingredients, in whole or in part, in other nonstandardized foods and 
collect data on consumer acceptance of the test product.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjan Morravej, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 28, 2023 
(88 FR 18322), we issued a notice announcing that we issued a temporary 
permit to Chobani, LLC, 200 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012, to 
market test lower-fat yogurt products deviating from the general 
definition and standard of identity for yogurt with modified milkfat 
and fat-containing flavoring ingredients, and yogurt deviating from the 
yogurt standard of identity by using ultrafiltered nonfat milk as a 
basic dairy ingredient. The permit allowed for the test product to be 
manufactured at 3450 Kimberly Rd. East, Twin Falls, ID 83301 and 669 
County Rd. 25, New Berlin, NY 13411.
    We issued the permit to facilitate market testing of products that 
deviate from the requirements for the basic dairy ingredient provision 
of the yogurt standard of identity under 21 CFR 131.200(b).
    Under our regulations at 21 CFR 130.17(f), we are amending the 
temporary permit issued to Chobani, LLC, to allow the test product to 
be used as ingredients, in whole or in part, in other nonstandardized 
foods. All other conditions and terms of this permit remain the same.

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20736 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1177

___________

In re: Doran Scott Wegner, also known *

as Doran & Denise Wegner, *

*

Debtor. *

*

 * 

*

Kip M. Kaler, as Bankruptcy Trustee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Appellee, * of North Dakota.

* 

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Elroy Letcher, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 10, 1998

Filed: July 1, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, and GAITAN, District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.
-2-

Elroy Letcher appeals the decision of the district court affirming the order of the

Bankruptcy Court of the District of North Dakota in this adversary bankruptcy

proceeding.

The facts are set forth in detail in the memorandum and order of the bankruptcy

court dated and filed on July 10, 1997. They need not be repeated here.

We are convinced that the well reasoned opinion of the bankruptcy court as

affirmed by the district court correctly discusses and decides the issues in dispute in

this case. Accordingly, no error of law or fact being evident, we affirm. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

 ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 411 

Congratulating Jockey Calvin Borel for his victory at the 133rd Kentucky 

Derby. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2007 

Mr. MELANCON (for himself, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. 

BOUSTANY, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BAKER, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. CHANDLER, and Mr. YARMUTH) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Jockey Calvin Borel for his victory at the 

133rd Kentucky Derby. 

Whereas Calvin Borel, born and raised in St. Martin Parish, 

Louisiana, began riding match horse races at the age of 

8 in the State of Louisiana; 

Whereas Mr. Borel began his professional career as a jockey 

at the age of 16; 

Whereas Mr. Borel is known for his work ethic and, even 

while ranked as a leading rider, often gallops horses and 

does stable chores for his brother before working horses 

in the morning; 

Whereas Mr. Borel had raced, but not placed, in four prior 

Kentucky Derbies; 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 411 IH 

Whereas on May 5, 2007, in the presence of the Queen of 

England, Mr. Borel rode Street Sense against several 

horses with stronger reputations; and 

Whereas in 2 minutes and 2.17 seconds Mr. Borel and Street 

Sense completed the race and placed first: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives com2 mends Calvin Borel for his victory at the 133rd Kentucky 

3 Derby. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IFTH Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan F. McKeage, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1) | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Michael J. Feder                           |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael J. FederActing Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                           |
|   | May 14, 2008                                   |
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BULENT ERTUR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL L. EDWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1532-JLR

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the above-entitled

action. (Dkt. 1.) Having reviewed that application, the Court finds that plaintiff financially

qualifies for IFP status and ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff. 

DATED this 15th day of September, 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 2 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 1
From: L. Eleanor Finney

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Womens" access to preventive care under the new health care law

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:53:23 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.

Only the woman, and anyone else she specifies, and her doctor should be making

decisions about her health care, not “religious employers.”

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.

Sincerely

L. Eleanor Finney

29571 Via Alto Cerro

Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1811

lefinney@cox.net
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

U.S. v. Alvarado-Martinez; CR05-5747RBL

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RAUL ALVARADO-MARTINEZ,

STACEY COMER, and BRANDON

TRAVER,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5747RBL

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial date, and the

affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion, the Court makes the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(i). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 57 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

U.S. v. Alvarado-Martinez; CR05-5747RBL

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendants the reasonable time for effective preparation their defenses. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from January 9, 2006

to MARCH 27, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from January 9, 2006

to March 27, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Pre-trial motions are due no later than FEBRUARY 13, 2006.

Pre-trial conference shall be on MARCH 21, 2006, at 9:00am.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2005. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ Russell V. Leonard /s/ William H. Redkey, Jr. 

 Russell V. Leonard William H. Redkey, Jr. 

Attorney for Raul Alvarado-Martinez Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ Ronald D. Ness /s/ Thomas A. Campbell 

Ronald D. Ness Thomas A. Campbell

Attorney for Stacey Comer Attorney for Brandon Traver

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 57 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
From: Tehringer@Verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:45 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,

Theresa Ehringer

Seffner, FL 33584
From: kwright1@prodigy.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:22:09 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,

Sherrie Wright

Inman, SC 29349
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

In re:

McGINN FAMILY LAND TRUST,

 Debtor.

 CASE NO. C05-1604JLR

Bankruptcy No. 04-14134

ORDER 

This case is hereby transferred to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez as related to 

C05-1570RSM. All future pleadings shall bear the cause number C05-1604RSM.

Dated this 26th day of September, 2005.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01604-RSM Document 5 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 1
From: foxheritage@pbtcomm.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:57:07 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,

Hubert Fox

Batesburg, SC 29006
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 3 Filed 09/30/02 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 3 Filed 09/30/02 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 3 Filed 09/30/02 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1444

SIMON BANKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-00-1107-A)

Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 28, 2001

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Russell Siciliano, DECARO,

DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, L.L.P., Lanham, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Simon Banks appeals a district court judgment rendered against

him, in accordance with a jury verdict, in his action against an

apartment management agency. Banks has failed to provide this

court with a transcript of the proceedings or move to have such

transcript produced at Government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)

(1994). We find that the appeal does not present a substantial

question. We further find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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: deborah_thompson31@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Deborah Thompson

, 94553-0931