alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66011-66012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 66012]]

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 Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Understanding Suicide Risk and Protective Factors 
Among Black Youth.
    Date: October 25, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Serena Chu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-500-5829 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c3f293e29222d622f24390c222524622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ae9ffe8fff4fbb4f9f2efdaf4f3f2b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>,

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20864 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>
Before the First Division,

March 1, 1956

No. 59738.

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 7189-R (Alexandria Bay).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

From the testimony, it appeared that the boats had originally been entered on the basis of foreign value at their catalog list price, less Canadian sales tax; that, upon investigation, it was determined that certain oars included in the shipment were separately dutiable and that the proper basis of value was cost of production; that it was determined to amend the entry by deducting the value of the oars supplied from the value of the boats and to multiply the value thus arrived at by a factor of 0.842, as representing the cost of production of the merchandise; and that, in so doing, the broker inadvertently deducted the total value of all the oars from the value of each boat and then multiplied the figure so obtained by the factor, resulting in the undervaluation here sought to be remitted. On the record presented, it was held that the undervaluation was the result of inadvertence and that there was no intent to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
## Breadcrumb

-  Justice.gov 
-  Office of Legal Counsel 
-  Opinions 
-  Opinions By Volume 

# Opinions by Volume

                      -  Facebook 
                      -  X 
                      -  LinkedIn 
                      -  Email 

## Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (Op. O.L.C.)

Volume 1 (1977)Volume 2 (1978)Volume 3 (1979)Volume 4A (1980)Volume 4B (1980)Volume 5 (1981)Volume 6 (1982)Volume 7 (1983)Volume 8 (1984)Volume 9 (1985)Volume 10 (1986)Volume 11 (1987)Volume 12 (1988)Volume 13 (1989)Volume 14 (1990)Volume 15 (1991)Volume 16 (1992)Volume 17 (1993)Volume 18 (1994)Volume 19 (1995)Volume 20 (1996)Volume 21 (1997)Volume 22 (1998)Volume 23 (1999)Volume 24 (2000)Volume 25 (2001)Volume 26 (2002)Volume 27 (2003)Volume 28 (2004)Volume 29 (2005)Volume 30 (2006)Volume 31 (2007)Volume 32 (2008)Volume 33 (2009)Volume 34 (2010)Volume 35 (2011)Volume 36 (2012)Volume 37 (2013)Volume 38 (2014)Volume 39 (2015)Volume 40 (2016)

## Supplemental Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (Op. O.L.C. Supp.)

The Attorney General of the United States has delegated to the Office of Legal Counsel the responsibility for preparing the formal opinions of the Attorney General, providing opinions to federal agencies, and assisting the Attorney General in performing his or her function as legal adviser to the President. Writings of OLC and its predecessors date back to 1933, but OLC did not begin publishing its opinions until January 1977. In this first volume of a new supplemental series, OLC is publishing a number of opinions written between 1933 and 1977. The volume includes at least one opinion from each Assistant Attorney General during that era, and several from future Supreme Court Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. Many of the opinions address legal issues related to significant historical events, including presidential action during World War II, the blockade of Cuba, U.S. incursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam War, and Watergate. And many involve legal issues that continue to have great relevance today, including appointment and removal of executive branch officers, executive privilege, the use of military force, and presidential control of communications during wartime.

Not all of the selections in this volume reflect current law or the current position of the Office. In some cases, they mark important signposts in the development of doctrine which have been superseded by more recent judicial or OLC opinions; in others, they shed light on important events in our history. In certain opinions, we have added editor's notes to indicate where the law may have changed. Notwithstanding that some of these opinions may no longer be good law, our hope is that all will prove to be of value to legal practitioners and legal historians. This volume was a labor of love and respect for the history, traditions, and people of OLC and the Department of Justice.

Volume 1 (various dates)
Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18 U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of SwissINSO Holding Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:




(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June 17, 2011


/s/ Manuel de Sousa


Manuel de Sousa


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SwissINSO Holding Inc. and will be retained by SwissINSO Holding Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 MOTION

TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE 1 

CR05-5733FDB

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

 JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATHAN MILLER,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5733FDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

DEADLINE

Upon motion of the defendant to continue the pretrial motions due date, the Court

finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date in this matter be

continued to January 17, 2006. 

DONE this 20th day of December, 2005.

A

JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Presented by:

___________________________ ____________________________

Russell V. Leonard Gregory Gruber

Assistant Federal Public Defender Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 3:05-cr-05733-RBL Document 18 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 404

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 17, 2007.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1427) to reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other 

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 

one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 

Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial 

Services now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
2

•HRES 404 EH 

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a 

substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. 

Each title shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 

that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 

order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 

Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 

before the beginning of consideration of the bill and except 

pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each 

amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member 

who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill 

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 

on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole 

to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 

final passage without intervening motion except one motion 

to recommit with or without instructions. 
3

•HRES 404 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1427 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

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

Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.
129 STAT. 440 PUBLIC LAW 114–39—JULY 30, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 971: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–172, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Ways and Means). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

Apr. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

July 15, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–39 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an increase in 

the limit on the length of an agreement under the Medicare independence at 

home medical practice demonstration program. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Independence at Home 

Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN THE LIMIT ON THE LENGTH OF AN AGREEMENT 

UNDER THE MEDICARE INDEPENDENCE AT HOME MEDICAL 

PRACTICE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

Section 1866E(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1395cc–5(e)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘3-year’’ and inserting ‘‘5- 

year’’. 

Approved July 30, 2015. 

42 USC 1305 

note. 

Medicare 

Independence at 

Home Medical 

Practice 

Demonstration 

Improvement Act 

of 2015. 

July 30, 2015 

[S. 971] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with PUBLAW
No. 62261.

#### Air Express International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 317264-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: Marvin Wegman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:34:26 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Marvin Wegman
Dover, Minnesota
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 26, 2021 s0323

Order 

Clerk

March 26, 2021

161631

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161631

COA: 352710

Lenawee CC: 18-018865-FH

SETH PATRICK DECK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2020 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Davis (Docket No. 160775) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the 

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
Before the Second Division,

February 1, 1961

No. 65133.

#### M. Farris & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/4915 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
(R.D. 11531)

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 864975, etc.

(Decided May 23, 1968)

*Allerton deC. Tomplcins*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*878LaNdis, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision, have been submitted for decision on the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> It is hereby stipulated ,and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the court, that the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, are limited to the items of merchandise on the invoices covered by entries under said appeals that are identified as pipe couplings or fittings of the kinds specified below, imported from England, which are not specified on the Final List, T.D. 54521.

> That on the dates of exportation the said couplings and fittings were being freely sold in the principal markets of England for exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at the following prices, less 4%, less 5%, less 0.8% less $26.75 per thousand kilos, less 19%, net packed.

> 

> 

The appeals listed in the attached Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), is the proper basis for determining value of the pipe couplings or fittings specified herein and covered by the entries in these appeals for reappraisement and that such value and the specified items are as follows:

> *879

> 

less 4 percent, less 5 percent, less 0.8 .percent, less $26.75 per thousand kilos, less 19 percent, net .packed.

As to all other merchandise, these appeals to reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will enter accordingly.
(V.D. 136)

#### The Garcia Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided July 26, 1967)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for tlie plaintiff.

*Carl Eardley,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by this court in *The Garcia Corp*v. *United*States, 55 Cust. Ct. 428, Abstract 69544, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in' reappraisement. It has been submitted on a written stipulation reading as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States:

1. That the involved fishing line was imported prior to and subsequent to effective date of Section 2 of the Customs Simplification Act (Public Law 927, 84th Cong., T.D. 54165); that said merchandise is identified on the final list, T.D. 54521.

2. That the involved merchandise consists of nylon fishing line and plastic boxes, exclusive of fishing line in diameters of 0.57, 0.63, & 0.75 mm, which were held by the Court in Abstract 69544 to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

3. That on or about the dates of exportation, such or similar fishing-line was not freely offered to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation or for exportation to the United States; and on or about said dates of exportation, such or similar imported mer-' chandise was not freely offered to all purchasers for domestic consumption in the United States.'

*8584. That the cost of production of the involved fishing line as defined in Section 402(f) or 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is equal to:

The appraised values less 140 each net packed.

5. That the cost of production of the involved plastic boxes, as defined in Section 402(f) or 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is ■equal to 14 cents each, net packed, the same value returned by the Appraiser therefor as an unusual container.

6. That the remands or protests enumerated on the schedule attached hereto may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described hereinabove.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production as that value is defined in section 402(f) or 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1930, or as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved fishing lines and that said value is the appraised value, less 14 cents each, net packed, and that cost of production as that value is defined in section 402(f) or 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1930, or as amended, supra, is the proper basis of value for the determination of the value of the involved plastic boxes, and that said value is the appraised value equal to 14 cents each, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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




In
connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Universal Solar
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wensheng Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:




(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.





Date:
December 30, 2010





/s/ Wensheng ChenWensheng
      Chen, Principal Executive Officer
                and
      Princial Financial Officer