alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21577]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-8903-LA; ASLBP No. 23-980-03-LA-BD01]


Order; (Providing Notice of Hearing)

AGENCY: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.

    This proceeding concerns the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
Staff's August 15, 2023 denial of Homestake Mining Company of 
California's (HMC) December 10, 2020, license amendment application to 
make changes to the monitoring station configuration at HMC's Grants, 
New Mexico reclamation project site.\1\ On September 5, 2023, HMC filed 
a hearing demand challenging the denial of its license amendment 
application.\2\ On September 20, 2023, the Board held a status 
conference with the parties to discuss matters relating to this 10 CFR 
part 2, subpart L proceeding.\3\ At this status conference, the NRC 
Staff indicated that it did not oppose HMC's hearing demand.\4\ Thus, 
on September 25, 2023, the Board granted HMC's hearing demand.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from Jane Marshall, Division Director, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to Brad R. Bingham, 
Closure Manager, HMC (Aug. 15, 2023) (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML23186A150); Letter from Brad. R. Bingham, Closure Manager, HMC, to 
NRC Document Control Desk (Dec. 18, 2020) (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML20356A288).
    \2\ See [HMC]'s Demand for Hearing on the NRC Staff's Denial of 
the License Amendment Request to Change the Background Monitoring 
Location for Radon and Ambient Gamma Radiation for Source Materials 
License No. SUA-1471 (Sept. 5, 2023).
    \3\ See Tr. at 3.
    \4\ See id. at 4-5.
    \5\ See Licensing Board Order (Granting Hearing Demand; 
Deferring Scheduling Conference) (Sept. 25, 2023) (unpublished).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the foregoing, a hearing will be conducted in this 
proceeding at a date to be determined. The hearing will be governed by 
the informal hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 2, subparts C 
and L, 10 CFR 2.300-2.390, 2.1200-2.1213.
    It is so ordered.

    For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
    Dated: September 26, 2023.

    Rockville, Maryland.
Michael M. Gibson,
Chair, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. 2023-21577 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit
32.1


Certifications
of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Noble Medical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 of the Company
(the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date: April
15, 2010




/s/ Robert S. EllinRobert
      S. EllinChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)/s/ Charles BentzCharles
      BentzChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
From: marianschiemann@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29:52 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,

Marian Schiemann

Omaha, NE 68136
From: tcogan@hvc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:49:00 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,

Tina Cogon

Middletown, NY 10940
From: ambermargaret5@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:23:12 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,

Amber Anderson

Tucson, AZ 85749
Exhibit 10.1


 


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES


CENTRAL DISTRICT


 





	
        IRONRIDGE GLOBAL IV, LTD.,

         

        Plaintiff

         

        v.

         

        ADVAXIS, INC.,

         

        Defendant
	
        Case No: BC497504

         

        Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. Daniel Buckley

         

        ORDER FOR 

        APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS

         

        Date: December 20, 2012 Time: 8:30 am

        Dept: 35

        Trial Date: None Set 











 


The Joint Ex Parte
Application for Court Approval of Stipulated Settlement (“Application”), filed by Plaintiff Ironridge Global
IV, Ltd. (“Plaintiff’) and Advaxis, Inc. (“Defendant”), came on for hearing on December 20,
2012 at 8:30 am in Department 35 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable Daniel Buckley, Judge presiding.


 


The Court having considered
the Application and supporting papers, the oral arguments of counsel, having been presented with a Stipulation for Settlement of
Claims (“Stipulation”), and good cause appearing therefor,


 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
AS FOLLOWS:


 


1.    The Stipulation,
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is approved in its entirety;


 


2.    Plaintiff owns
bona fide outstanding claims against Defendant, and the terms and conditions of the issuance and exchange of such claims for free-trading
shares of common stock of Defendant, as set forth in the Stipulation, are approved after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms
and conditions at which Plaintiff, the only person to whom it is proposed to issue securities in such exchange, had the right to
appear;


 


3.    The above-entitled
action is dismissed in its entirety; provided that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order by a
motion under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.


 


IT IS SO ORDERED.


 


	DATED: December 20, 2012	/s/ Daniel J. Buckley
	 	Judge of the Superior Court
From: bakergto@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:27:19 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,

Michael Baker

Denham Springs, LA 70726
----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Mediware. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  November      3, 2009 | /s/      T. Kelly Mann                                                                                         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |            T. Kelly Mann           Chief Executive Officer   |
|                                          |                                                                                                           |   |
| Dated:  November      3, 2009       | /s/      Mark B. Williams                                                                                      |   |
|                                          |            Mark B. Williams           Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
**EXHIBIT
        15**
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 To
        the
        Board of Directors and Shareholders of
 Mediware
        Information Systems, Inc.
 
 We
        have
        reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company
        Accounting Oversight Board (United States) the unaudited interim condensed
        consolidated financial statements of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. and
        subsidiaries as of September 30, 2006 and for the three month periods ended
        September 30, 2006 and 2005 as indicated in our review report dated October
        26,
        2006. Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on those
        financial statements.
 
 We
        are
        aware that our review report, which is included in your Quarterly Report
        on
        Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, is incorporated by
        reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-07591,
        No. 333-83016, No. 333-119503, No. 333-123496 and No.
        333-130576).
 
 We
        are
        also aware that our review report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
        Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), is not considered a part of the Registration
        Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
        certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
        Act and the accountants’ Section 11 liability does not extend to such
        report.
 
 
 Eisner
        LLP
 New
        York,
        New York
 October
        26, 2006
No. 58675.

protest 222580-K (A) (New York).

#### Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: LSnapp@newlifeefc.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:06:32 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,

Larry Snapp

Aurora, CO 80016
From: dlaber_99@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:00:54 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,

David Abernathy

Statesville, NC 28625
From: mareksitar@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:35:01 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,

Marek Sitar

, IL 60453