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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Consortium for Food Allergy Research: Leadership Center (UM1 Clinical Trial Required).                    

*Date:*                         November 1, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 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 3F52, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lindsey M. Pujanandez, 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 3F52 Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 627-3206,                         *lindsey.pujanandez@nih.gov*.                    

(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 25, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21358 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000874787
<NAME> PHYAMERICA PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,589
<PP&E>                                           7,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,829
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           430

<OTHER-SE>                                   (127,135)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,150
<SALES>                                        241,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,376
<CGS>                                          260,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,437)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)


</TABLE>
From: karen.walt@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:40:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

karen walton

Colmar, PA 18915
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7809

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARLUCIUS LAMONT ALFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-01-57; CA-03-2844)

Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arlucius Lamont Alford, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Arlucius Lamont Alford seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alford has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard F. Pops,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Richard F. Pops
                                        Richard F. Pops
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 14, 2002
From: teabychance@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:49:06 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,

Melba Mathews

Kennedale, TX 76060
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

DEADLINE & TRIAL DATE - 1 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA, INC. P.S. 

600 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 433 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 464-4142

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

Hon. Robert S. Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS A. CAMERON, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR 05 – 382 RSL 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL 

MOTIONS DEADLINE & TRIAL DATE 

The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Continue Pretrial Motions Deadline 

and Trial Date, and the government’s response to the motion, finds that, pursuant to Title 18, 

United States Code, Sections 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B)(iv), the ends of justice served by granting 

the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial, 

for the reasons outlined in defendant’s motion. Specifically, it appears to the Court that the 

failure to grant a trial continuance would effectively deny defense counsel the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date of Monday, April 17, 2006 is 

continued to Monday, July 24, 2006, and the motions deadline is extended to June 19, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cr-00382-RSL Document 18 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

DEADLINE & TRIAL DATE - 2 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA, INC. P.S. 

600 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 433 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 464-4142

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of delay from Monday, April 17, 2006 to 

Monday, July 24, 2006, is excludable time pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 

3161(h)(8)(A), for the purpose of computing the time limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial 

Act, Title 18 United States Code, Sections 3161 through 3174. 

ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2006.

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge

A

Submitted by: 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA

Stephan R. Illa 

WSBA No. 15793 

Attorney for Defendant Thomas A. Cameron 

Case 2:05-cr-00382-RSL Document 18 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 199 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 

Mr. REYES (for himself and Mr. HOEKSTRA) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence in the One Hundred Tenth 

Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee 

4 on Intelligence (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 

5 the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff sala6 ries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries 

8 and expenses, not more than $10,409,000 for the One 

9 Hundred Tenth Congress. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 199 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $5,077,000 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2007, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2008; and 

7 (2) not more than $5,332,000 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2008, and ending immediately 

10 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
From: cdjacobs78@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:48:48 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,

Carl Jacobs

Vancouver, WA 98661
From: rmedders758@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:58:47 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,

rusty medders

Moravian Falls, NC 28654
From: vmackimd@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:41:33 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,

Victoria Macki

Ellensburg, WA 98926