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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 26, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 20, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 61 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-276, CP2023-279.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-20917 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: mcjintwocities@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:42:06 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,

Cynthia Johnstoon

Signal Mountain, TN 37377
Case Ho. 6,601.

#### HILL v. WASHINGTON.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 114.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1837.

Slaves — Municipal Regulations — Recobds.

Under the power “to lay and collect taxes upon the real and personal property within the city.” the- corporation of Washington has a right to pass a by-law requiring every person bringing or sending any slave or slaves into the city, to hire or reside therein, to cause such slave or slaves to be recorded in the books of the corporation, and to deposit with the register an affidavit that such slave or slaves are bona fide his or her property.

Appeal from three judgments rendered by a justice of tbe peace against the appellant [Ann A. Hill] for the penalty of $20 in each case, for not causing three slaves to be recorded on the books of the corporation, which she had brought into the city to reside; and for not depositing with the register an affidavit that they were bona fide her property, within twenty days after bringing them in, contrary to the by-law of the 5th of April, .1823 (chapter 80, g 5).

Clement Cox and Mr. Dandridge contended that the corporation of Washington had no *182power to make such a by-law, as their charter gives them no such express power, and as it is not necessary for the exercise of any power expressly given.

Mr. Bradley, contra.

It is necessary that slaves should be registered in order to enable the corporation to execute the power to restrain the nightly meetings of free negroes and- slaves. It is necessary also in order to ascertain when slaves are here without being under the control of their masters. It is also necessary, in order to know (when a slave is fined) who the owner is who is to pay the fine. The corporation itself is to judge of the necessity of the means used to carry into effect its express powers. A tax is laid expressly upon the slaves of non-residents, higher than upon the slaves of residents. A register of the slaves of non-residents is necessary in order to make this discrimination.

In reply, it was -said, that the powers of corporations are to be construed strictly. 2 Kyd, Corp. 167; 7 Cow. 606. That the corporation has no authority to discriminate between the slaves of residents and non-residents as to their taxation. That under the general law, the owners of slaves have a right to bring them here and the corporation has no right to prevent them, nor to burden them with extraordinary taxes.

Before CRANCH, Chief Judge, and THRUSTON and MORSELL, Circuit Judges.

CRANCH, Chief Judge.

The power “to lay and collect taxes upon the real and personal property within the city,” includes the power to use the means of ascertaining such property, and the owners thereof. Slaves might be brought into the city and hired out here for years before the officers of the corporation could know it. It is necessary, to the full enjoyment of the right of taxation, that some means should be used to ascertain the bringing in of that kind of property as soon as possible. The means adopted in the bylaw is reasonable and proper, and therefore warranted by. the charter.

MORSELL, Circuit Judge, dissented.
No. 59194.

protest 253199-K (New York).

#### Terzis of Syria, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers in this case disclosing nothing that would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix Chiari, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 564]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J., at suppression hearing; Juanita Bing Newton, J., at trial and sentence), rendered June 24, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The undercover officer’s description of the seller, which included his height, race, sex, a detailed description of his clothing, his exact location and the fact that he was holding a shopping bag, was sufficiently specific to enable the backup officer who made the arrest to conclude that defendant was the person described *(People v Ward,*182 AD2d 573, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 849).

Where defendant argued that this was a case of mistaken identity and that he was not the man who had sold cocaine to the undercover, his arrest photo was properly admitted to establish his appearance at the time of the crime *(People v Santana,*162 AD2d 191, 191-192).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Before the Second Division,

April 7, 1966

No. P66/22.

protests 62/5267 and 62/5249 (Baltimore).

#### Kelvin and Hughes America Corp. *v.*United States,

Kao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of echo-sounding equipment and parts thereof dedicated to use therewith, in chief value of metal, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kelvin & Hughes America Corp.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 21, C.D. 2468), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 12, 2021 No. 04-21-00110-CV IN RE GREAT PLAINS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION , From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI19936 Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The Appellee, Cynara Dolphy-Budd’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended until August 25, 2021.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 69677.

#### Selectile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/1915(A) (Los Angeles).

*505Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Selectile Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 2504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: jkercher@neb.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:35:42 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 can cause an abortion, such as ella, Plan B, and even the "pill" which has been shown to

cause early abortion of a fertilized egg.

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,

Julia Kercher

Lincoln, NE 68526
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 16 Filed 08/14/03 Page 13 of 13
From: hollymhanson@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:49:17 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,

Holly Dyrud

Moorhead, MN 56560
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    In connection with the Annual Report of TheWebDigest, Corp., (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Adelstein,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.

Date: March 15, 2011                  /s/ Steven Adelstein
                                      --------------------
                                      Steven Adelstein
                                      Chief Financial Officer,
                                      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
From: bradg@3greers.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:12 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,

Brad Greer

Ballwin, MO 63011
From: rjones@cottey.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:04:33 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.

Quite simply, I pay health insurance premiums, and I object to being charged, however indirectly, for

someone else's elective procedure. I would feel the same way if it were for a "nose job" or a "chin

tuck."

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.

Sincerely,

Robert Jones

Nevada, MO 64772
From: nbausch@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:54:46 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,

Nancy Bausch

Salem, NH 03079
Before the Second Division,

January 23, 1958

No. 61492.

#### Competition Chemicals and Ad. M. Schmid & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 301206-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ammeters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lucas Electrical Services, Inc.,*and *Frank J. Eberle Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 1776), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, being the Chairman and Principal Executive Officer of
GFSI, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Quarterly Report") of the Registrant
for the period ended October 1, 2005, which accompanies this certification,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m(a)) and that the information contained
in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: November 9, 2005


/s/ Robert M. Wolff
----------------------------------------
Robert M. Wolff
Chairman and Principal Executive Officer