alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
South George Vegetation and Fuels Management Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

Asotin and Garfield Counties, WA 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Monte Fujishin, District Ranger

 Umatilla National Forest 

 Pomeroy Ranger District 

 71 W. Main Street 

 Pomeroy, Washington 99347 

For Information Contact: Dan Castillo, Project Team Leader 

 Pomeroy Ranger District 

 71 W. Main Street 

 Pomeroy, Washington 99347 

 (509) 843-1891 

Email - docastillo@fs.fed.us 

Abstract: For this project, USDA Forest Service is proposing vegetation and fuels management to 

improve forest health, vigor, and resilience to fire, insects, and disease in upland forests that are outside 

their historical pre-fire suppression conditions for species composition, structural diversity, and stocking 

densities; reduce fuel loadings; provide sawlogs and wood fiber products for utilization by regional and 

local industries; and to continue to provide and manage for wildlife habitat and its components (cover and 

forage).

Four alternatives, including the No Action alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in the DEIS. 

Alternative B, proposed action and preferred alternative, would commercially harvest and reduce activity 

fuels on approximately 3,900 acres. Alternative C is designed to implement project activities with no 

temporary road construction and to decommission roads and trails. Alternative C would commercially 

harvest and reduce activity fuels on approximately 3,900 acres. Alternative D is designed to maintain 

existing old forest. Alternative D would commercially harvest and reduce activity fuels on about 2,600 

acres. Other activities proposed in all action alternatives include: natural fuels treatments (1,150 acres); 

landscape prescribed fire (3,000 acres); and danger tree removal along haul routes and trail heads. 

The Responsible Official must receive comments on this Draft Environmental Impact Statements 45 days 

after the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. 

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful 

to the agency’s preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided 

prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and comments. 

The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent 

administrative appeal or judicial review. 

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, 

will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 

accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to 

participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review.
Case No. 8,184.

#### LEE v. CASSIN.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 112.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1815.

Bills and Notes — Demand Note — When Cause of Action Accedes — Limitation of Actions — Lex Loci Contractus.

1. Upon a note payable on demand, the cause of action does not accrue until demand made; and if the defendant remove before demand, the act of limitations is no bar.

2. The act of Maryland is no bar, in the county ■ of Washington, D. C., to an action upon a note made by the defendant in Massachusetts, if the plaintiff has always resided in that state; and to the plea of the statute he may reply that he was beyond seas, &c.

Assumpsit upon the defendant’s promissory note, made in Massachusetts, where all the parties resided. There was a count also for money had and received. The defendant pleaded, 1st Non assumpsit. 2d and 3d. Non assumpsit, and actio non aecrevit infra tres annos, under the Maryland act of limitations. 4th. Non assumpsit infra sex annos, under the act of limitations of Massachusetts. The note was payable on demand, and to the 4th plea the plaintiff replied that the defendant removed from. Massachusetts before demand, and consequently before the cause of action accrued; and that he left no property, &c. To the 2d and 3d pleas the plaintiff replied that he was beyond seas, &c. To these replications the defendant demurred.

Mr. Wallach and Mr. Jones, for plaintiff.

The statute of limitations of Massachusetts is no bar here. It is to be considered as a statute of limitations of a foreign state which does not extinguish the right, but the remedy only in that state. Williams v. Jones, 13 East, 439; Pearsall v. Dwight; 2 Mass. 84; Nash v. Tupper, 1 Caines, 402. The plaintiff has never been in the District of Columbia; the statute of Maryland, therefore, cannot apply to him. He has always been within the exception of persons beyond seas. Searight v. Calbraith, 4 Dali. [4 U. S.] 327; Con-framp v. Bunel, Id. 419; Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. 263.

Mr. Key, contra.

The lex loci contraetus governs the case. Ball. Lim. 84. The note being payable on demand, the cause of action arose as soon as the note was signed; and consequently *147before tbe defendant left the state, so that the statute of limitations of Massachusetts had begun to run before he removed.

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, not sitting)

was of opinion that on a note payable on demand, the cause of action does not accrue so as to make the statute of limitations begin to run until a demand be made. That the removal of the defendant from Massachusetts, before the cause of action accrued, was a bar to the statute of limitations of Massachusetts; and the replication that the plaintiff was beyond seas, was a bar to the statute of Maryland.
From: Pegatha@hughes.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:18:46 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,

Peggy Johnson

Olympia, WA 98512
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: TheNelchina-Susitna region, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:668
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956212
 
July 18, 2018
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)   In connection with the Report of PrepaYd, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce Berman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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: February 23, 2012  By:\s\ Bruce Berman Bruce Berman Chief Financial Officer
From: bmcrae54@yahoo.ca

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:46:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert McRae

, V4N 1V2
No. 69828.

protest 63/11974 (Baltimore).

#### Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chinaware cups and saucers, not chiefly used as tableware, but chiefly used as souvenir articles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–709 PDF 2016

[ERRATA] 

BIG LABOR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES: 

EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES 

OF UNIONIZING STUDENT ATHLETES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 8, 2014 

Serial No. 113–58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

ERRATA 

The referenced hearing held before the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce was inadvertently printed with the incorrect 

staffer’s name as James Martin on page 1. The correct name is 

John Martin. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER
From: susanoswald@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:47:09 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,

Susan Oswald

New Providence, NJ 07974
From: tbredhorzlovr@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:45:59 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.

Stop Obama 2012

Sincerely,

Scarlett Collins

North Fort Myers, FL 33917
From: ciarrai@insightbb.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:40:01 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,

Shawna Miller

Charlestown, IN 47111
No. P67/242.

#### The Cottrell Co. and J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/2494 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of slitting machines and parts thereof, which parts are dedicated to use on or for said slitting machines, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. J. Gavin &*Co., *Inc., and The Cottrell Company et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 414, Abstract 69266), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0143

JILL MARIE LOTTER, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including April 17, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 11 2022

03/11/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0143
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the use in thisAnnual Report on Amended Form 10-K of Oryon Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our audit report dated February 27, 2013, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Oryon Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31,2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. We also consent to the incorporation byreference of said report in the Registration Statement of Oryon Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-183568). 

/s/ MONTGOMERY COSCIAGREILICH LLP 

MONTGOMERY COSCIA GREILICH LLP 

Plano, Texas 

March 7, 2013
From: bagdarien@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:50 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,

Elizabeth Girdwain

Darien, IL 60561