alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: szulkowski@ntelos.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:18:21 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,

Melissa Szulkowski

Waynesboro, VA 22980
Before the Third Division,

October 16, 1962

No. 67132.

protest 61/2345 (Los Angeles).

#### Japan Food Products Corp. *v.*United States,

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise in issue herein consists of Ohilli, un-ground, which was exported from Japan, entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif., and assessed with duty under 19 U.S.C.A., section 1001, paragraph 781 (par. 781, Tariff Act of 1930). Twenty-five bags of the importation are involved in the instant protest, concerning which the parties stipulated at the trial as follows:

> Mr. Glad: * * *

We offer to stipulate that the entry in question covers 75 bags of Chillies unground, weighing 100 pounds each per bag, imported and assessed for duty at 5 cents per pound under paragraph 781.

We further offer to stipulate that while still in Customs custody, 25 of these bags were exported to Mexico on T & E 1490, and we further offer to stipulate that no allowance was made for duty on these 25 bags.

> Mr. Braverman:

From information obtained from Mr. Arthur Hoffnung, chief liquidator in the office of the Collector of Customs at Los Angeles, the Government so stipulates.

*264Accepting this stipulation as evidence of the facts, we hold, upon the authority of 19 U.S.C.A., section 1553 (§ 553, Tariff Act of 1930), that the merchandise covered by the instant protest is exempt from the payment of duty, in consequence of which plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the duties paid thereon. The protest is, therefore, sustained.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: karen_odom@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:31:36 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 Odom

Arlington, TX 76006
H. Res. 533 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the 

reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in 

Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other 

purposes. All points of order against the bill and against its 

consideration are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) four 

hours of debate, with three hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Armed Services and one hour equally divided 

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion to 

recommit. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
2 

•HRES 533 EH 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 59716.

#### V. W. Davis *v.*United States,

protests 6044-K, etc. (Duluth).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the lumber is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*(24 C. C. P. A. 156, T. D. 48640) and *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(73 Treas. Dec. 714, T. D. 49530), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to certain of the protests in question. As to the merchandise covered by the entries enumerated in schedule “A,” the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries on the basis of the actual number of board feet of planed, tongued, and/or grooved lumber imported, as shown on the invoices and/or the entries, or as may be calculated arithmetically from the information shown thereon. As to the merchandise covered by the entries enumerated in schedule “B,” the protests, having been abandoned, were overruled.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

OF REGO PAYMENT
ARCHITECTURES, INC.

PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Rego Payment Architectures, Inc. (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Scott A. McPherson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 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 results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date:  May 28,
    2020 | By: | /s/ Scott A. McPherson  | 
|----------------------- | --- | ----------------------- | 
|                        |     | Scott A. McPherson      | 
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer |
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                           ( print 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                         *serena.chu@nih.gov*,                    

(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
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 First Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and
Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services
    1.
    
    Section 1.1.1 (c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the second sentence
and replace it with CTS shall endeavor to provide a minimum of
***** units
of donor Bone Tissue per calendar month.2.
    
    Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby amended to change the fee
to $*** per unit of donor Bone Tissue as permitted under Section 1.1.2. of the
Agreement.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 Osteotech, Inc.
    
    
    
    Community Blood Center
d/b/a Community Tissue ServicesBy:
    
    
    
    /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Julia M. BeldenName:
    
    Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Julia M. BeldenTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
From: duane@restoremin.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:38:48 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,

Duane Sabin

Hansville, WA 98340
Before the Third Division,

September 19, 1960

No. 64544.

#### Lep Transport, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/16592 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that 738 dressed chinchilla skins, exported to England, were returned to the United States without having been advanced in value or condition and that the plaintiff duly advised the collector that the merchandise was entitled to free 'entry and submitted the proper customs forms. In view of the stipulation, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: jeh319@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16:08 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,

liana hinkle

Lockhart, TX 78644
From: Sprygg@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:23:55 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,

Steve Rygg

Wichita, KS 67228
No. 63350.

protest 58/19729 (New York).

#### Traveler Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of artificial flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Page 1 Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC

888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 300 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

MICHAEL ARON SMITH, a single man, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE, dba 

COUNTRY INSURANCE & FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, 

 Defendant. 

No.: C05-1729-RSL 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE 

STIPULATION

Plaintiff Michael Aron Smith and Defendant Country Mutual Insurance Company, by 

and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that the claims of Michael 

Aron Smith alleged against Country Mutual Insurance Company in the above-captioned 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01729-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Page 2 Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC

888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 300 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

lawsuit have been fully resolved and that such claims should be dismissed with prejudice and 

without costs to either party. 

 DATED this 3rd day of August , 2006. 

 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 

 By /s/ Sara Van Loh 

Andrew C. Lauersdorf, pro hac vice 

E-mail: andrew.lauersdorf@bullivant.com 

Sara Van Loh, pro hac vice E-mail: sara.vanloh@bullivant.com 

David VanSpeybroeck, pro hac vice 

E-mail: david.vanspeybroeck@bullivant.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Country Mutual 

Insurance 

 DATED this 3rd day of August , 2006. 

WERSHOW & RITTER, INC. P.S. 

By /s/ Jason D. Graber 

Jason D. Gaber, WSB #31452 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing stipulation of the parties, it is 

HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all claims against 

Country Mutual in the above-captioned lawsuit are dismissed with prejudice and without 

costs or attorney fees awarded to either party. 

 DATED this 7th day of August, 2006. 

 A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01729-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2