alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21616]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; ADRD Etiology.
    Date: October 31, 2023.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sandhya Sanghi, Ph.D., Scientific Research 
Officer, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue (2N230), NIA/SRB, Bethesda, MD 20814, 
(301) 496-2879, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90e3f1fef4f8e9f1bee3f1fef7f8f9d0fef9f8bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90e3f1fef4f8e9f1bee3f1fef7f8f9d0fef9f8bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21616 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: nestoca@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:48:53 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,

Nestor Torres

Winter Garden, FL 34787
#### Jennifer Beard, Appellant, v Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 805]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered October 1, 1993, which, upon the granting of the motion by the defendants Nassau-Suffolk Orthopedic As*551sociates, P. C., and Armond Prisco, M.D., for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiffs case, and upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Michael Carroll on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

This action arises from the defendants’ surgical treatment of the plaintiffs hammertoe condition of both feet. The plaintiff alleged that the surgery was negligently performed, and that the defendants did not adequately explain either the available alternatives or the risks inherent in the procedure, for had she known that her feet would be left "deformed” by the operation, she would not have consented to it.

At the close of the plaintiffs case, the trial court granted the motion of Dr. Prisco for dismissal of the complaint as against him on the basis that the evidence adduced established that he had merely assisted in the operation on the plaintiffs feet and had not acted as the primary surgeon, and that only Dr. Carroll, the primary surgeon, was legally required to obtain the plaintiffs informed consent.

The trial court correctly determined that, viewing the evidence adduced in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury could not have concluded by any rational process that Dr. Prisco was the primary surgeon. Accordingly, the court properly granted Dr. Frisco’s motion for dismissal of the malpractice claim as against him. In addition, even if, under the particular circumstances of this case, it is assumed that Dr. Prisco had a duty to obtain the plaintiffs informed consent, the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs claim based upon lack of informed consent as against Dr. Prisco was harmless because the jury found that the plaintiff had been adequately informed of the risks of her surgery by Dr. Carroll, her primary surgeon *(see, Shkolnik v Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Inst.,*211 AD2d 347; *cf, Spinosa v Weinstein,*168 AD2d 32, 39-40).

Finally, the trial court properly rejected the plaintiffs motion for preclusion of the testimony of the defendants’ expert because of the alleged inadequacy of the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs request pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) for information about the defendants’ expert. The defendants’ response was not so inadequate as to have been misleading nor so insufficient that it resulted in prejudice or surprise to the plaintiff *(see, Hageman v Jacobson,*202 AD2d 160; *Godfrey v Dunn,*190 AD2d 896; *Marra v Hensonville Frozen Food Lockers,*189 AD2d 1004), particularly when viewed in light of the plaintiffs own general response to the defendants’ demand for *552expert witness information *(see, Godfrey v Dunn, supra).*Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Angeliki Frangou, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this amendment no. 2 to the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 of Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Angeliki Frangou                                 
|Angeliki Frangou                                     
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)

Date: August 29, 2013
From: raleighwhite@net-change.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:23 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,

Raleigh White

Hobbsville, NC 27946
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Dwight BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40055.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frank Warren Henderson, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gary Dwight Blair, a federal prisoner, appeals following his guilty plea to a charge of assaulting a correctional officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. Blair argues that the district court committed reversible error by imposing a sentence pursuant to the mandatory Federal Sen*368tencing Guidelines system that was held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review for plain error. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005)(No. 05-5556).

The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing Blair under a mandatory Sentencing Guidelines scheme. *See id.; United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005)(No. 04-9517). However, Blair has not carried his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *Mares,*402 F.3d at 521.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
From: glenrodford60@bak.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:17:57 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,

RODGER PEARSON

Bakersfield, CA 93308
No. 60225.

protests 279379-K, etc. (New York).

#### H. & S. Originals et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 772 

Recognizing the American Highway Users Alliance on the occasion of its 

75th anniversary, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2007 

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. MICA, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the American Highway Users Alliance on the 

occasion of its 75th anniversary, and for other purposes. 

Whereas in 1932, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., then president of General Motors Corporation, and other civic leaders had the 

foresight to found the National Highway Users Conference for the purpose of working ‘‘for good, all-weather 

roads in every state’’; 

Whereas in 1970, the National Highway Users Conference 

merged with the Automotive Safety Foundation to form 

the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, 

which in 1995 was renamed as the American Highway 

Users Alliance (known as the ‘‘Highway Users’’); 

Whereas since its founding, the Highway Users has been a 

persistent and outspoken proponent for adequate funding 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 772 IH 

of the Nation’s highway infrastructure and a consistent 

voice for motorists who use the highways for leisure, family, and business purposes and for those who depend on 

the Nation’s transportation infrastructure for commercial 

purposes; 

Whereas the Highway Users has voiced the interests of motorists and businesses on all major national highway and 

traffic safety legislation over the past 75 years, including 

the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized 

the Interstate Highway System and established the Highway Trust Fund; 

Whereas the Highway Users has been a consistent force for 

protecting the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund and 

State highway trust funds; 

Whereas research conducted by the Highway Users has documented the promise and potential of modern United 

States highways in improving safety, facilitating emergency evacuations, and growing the national economy; 

and 

Whereas the Highway Users has been a strong advocate in 

favor of strengthening the national highway network by 

promoting a strong Federal role in mobility and safety 

and by advocating policies that benefit highway users: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the American Highway Users Al3 liance on the occasion of its 75th anniversary; 

4 (2) commends the many achievements of the 

5 American Highway Users Alliance; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 772 IH 

1 (3) encourages the American Highway Users 

2 Alliance to continue its tradition of excellence in 

3 service to motorists and the transportation industry. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
129 STAT. 488 PUBLIC LAW 114–48—AUG. 7, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2131: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–137 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

June 15, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 5, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–48 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 83 

Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial 

Center’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED 

STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United States 

courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Waties Waring 

Judicial Center’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

building and United States courthouse referred to in subsection 

(a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Waties Waring 

Judicial Center’’. 

Approved August 7, 2015. 

Aug. 7, 2015 

[H.R. 2131] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
(R.D. 11514)

#### Robert Bosch Corporation Leyden Customs Expediters, Inc. v. *United*States

Entry No. 837340.

(Decided April 18, 1968)

*Glad & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*Edvjin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Bao, Chief Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement is limited to the spark plugs exported from West Germany and entered for consumption after the effective date (February 27,1958) of Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165).

> 2. That the merchandise involved herein is not identified on the Final List (T.D. 54521) published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 3. That at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of packing and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment, to the United States, was the invoice unit price, net packed.

> 4. That the said appeal for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

*840Upon the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination o,f the value of the merchandise covered by said appeal for reappraisement and that such value is the invoice unit price, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

August 4, 1955

No. 59243.

protest 254437-K (New York).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the appraiser reported that five of the imported articles were not produced prior to 1830 but that the balance, items numbered 50, 59, 63, 70, and 83, were so produced. It was further stipulated that all of the customs regulations have now been complied with and had such regulations been complied with at the time of the review of the protest herein, the items returned by the appraiser as produced prior to 1830 would have been granted free entry under paragraph 1811, and the 25 percent ad valorem additional duty under section 489 would not have been assessed. Following *Mrs. Kimball G. Colby*v. *United States*(62 Treas. Dec. 571, T. D. 46010), it was held that since the articles involved herein were not imported for sale, they are not subject to the additional duty of 25 percent assessed under section 489, as that provision is expressly limited to articles rejected under paragraph 1811 and imported for sale. It further appearing from the official papers and the agreed statement of fact that items numbered 50, 59, 63, 70, and 83 are artistic antiquities produced prior to 1830, said items were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1811, as claimed.
No. P67/292.

#### Guy B. Barham Co. and M. Large, Designer *v.*United States, protest 61/17774 (Los Angeles).

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of colored opal glass tiles or tiling similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Casavan Carrara Marble Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 1911), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 62244.

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. of Phila. *v.*United States,

protest 317000-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.