alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P67/102.

#### Omscolite Imports Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/9700, etc. (Philadelphia).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of earphones similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Motorola, Inc., and International Expediters, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 303, Abstract 69019), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21507]



[[Page 67271]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification 
Applications

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Rivers Power NH, LLC:
    J. Brodie Smith Hydroelectric Project...................    2287-053
    Gorham Hydroelectric Project............................    2288-057
Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC:
    Shelburne Hydroelectric Project.........................    2300-052
    Upper Gorham Hydroelectric Project......................    2311-067
    Cross Power Hydroelectric Project.......................    2326-054
    Cascade Hydroelectric Project...........................    2327-047
    Sawmill Hydroelectric Project...........................    2422-058
    Riverside Hydroelectric Projec..........................    2423-031
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 22, 2023, Central Rivers Power NH, LLC and Great Lakes 
Hydro America, LLC submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) copies of its applications for Clean Water Act 
section 401(a)(1) water quality certifications filed with the New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (New Hampshire DES), in 
conjunction with the above captioned projects. Pursuant to Section 401 
of the Clean Water Act \1\ and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's 
regulations,\2\ a state certifying agency is deemed to have waived its 
certifying authority if it fails or refuses to act on a certification 
request within a reasonable period of time, which is one year after the 
date the certification request was received. Accordingly, we hereby 
notify New Hampshire DES of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
    \2\ 18 CFR 5.23(b) (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date New Hampshire DES received the certification requests: 
September 22, 2023.
    If New Hampshire DES fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification requests on or before September 22, 2024, then the agency 
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of 
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21507 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
"Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking"

Our company would like to apply for exemption to use our Phantom 3 drone to inspect communication towers at up to 1200 ft. Our company has been in business for 8 years now. We paint communication towers all over the U.S. We are the leading tower paintin g company in the U.S. With this drone footage we will be able to inspect our work and pass on to our customers. I have our IC id number:

IC:11805A - WM3231503 FCC ID: SS3 - WM3231503 This is model GL300B Thank you for your time. Kind Regards, Lindsey Ma ndolesi
From: photoimageartist@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:01:02 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,

Matthew Birbiglia

Collierville, TN 38017
From: HerronMO105@AOL.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:46:05 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,

G. Herron

New Melle, MO 63365
From: joyceharned@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:24:42 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 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,

Joyce Harned

Bel Air, MD 21014
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 699 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 2, 2007.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on Financial Services: Mr. McCarthy of California.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Before The Second Division,

April 4, 1963

No. 67575.

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/21368, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00356-CR

Glen Latel Powe a/k/a Glen Powe

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1220720D)

May 22, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
From: don.rehm@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:22:50 PM

To HHS Management or Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind and put an end to 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,

Don Rehm

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
From: dwightdr@twinvalley.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:00:37 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,

Dwight Diller

Riley, KS 66531
Stanton SRMA

Yarnell Hang

Gliding Management

Area

YARNELL

32

05

34

23

35

13

07

31

21 22

29

11

20

08

14 17

05

27 26 30

09 12 08

19

06

01

28

09

24

16

33 36

02

24

18

25

03

10 12

04

13 15

10

07

25

11

36

12

01

12

01

08

05 02 06 04 01 03

32

29

20

17

08

31

30

19

18

07

06 05

06

07

35 36 31 33 34 32 31 32 36

02

13 18

11

09

17

04

14

16

35

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1

Map 2-23

Yarnell Hang Gliding Area

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Miles

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Yarnell Hang Gliding Area

Section
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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GENERAL METALS OF TACOMA, INC., a

Washington corporation, and ARKEMA

INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

BEAN ENVIRONMENTAL LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company; and

BEAN DREDGING LLC, a Louisiana

Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5306RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of

Prejudgment Interest and Attorney’s Fees [Dkt. #368], Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

or, in the Alternative, a New Trial [Dkt. #370], Defendants’ Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending

Post-Trial Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, a New Trial [Dkt. #372], and

Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Judgment [Dkt. #373]. 

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Plaintiffs ask this Court to rule on their Motion for Prejudgment Interest and Attorney’s Fees in a

vacuum without the benefit of affidavits and billing records in support of the request. The Court declines to

so rule. Plaintiffs shall submit proper affidavits and materials in support of their motion on or before March

9, 2007. The motion [Dkt. #368] will be re-noted for March 23, 2007.

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 374 Filed 03/06/07 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

27

28 1

Due to clerical error, Docket No. 364 does not contain the title “Judgment;” however, the Clerk’s docket reflects that

the document entered is this Court’s standard form of Judgment. Docket No. 364 was entered as the Judgment.

 ORDER

Page - 2

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, a New Trial [Dkt. #370]

and Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Post-Trial Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law or,

in the Alternative, a New Trial [Dkt. #372] are both noted for March 23, 2007.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Judgment [Dkt. #373] is DENIED at this time. The Court’s Judgment1

entered February 16, 2007 [Dkt. #364] will operate as the Judgment for purposes of post-judgment interest

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961(a). The Court will issue a more comprehensive judgment after ruling on the

pending motions which will be the Judgment issued for purposes of appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 6th day of March, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 374 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2
August 29, 1956

No. 60214.

Suit 4856.

#### Chemical Specialties Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

D. 1698 affirmed May 15, 1956. C. A. D 614.
H. Res. 701 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 3, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 928) to amend the Inspector General Act of 

1978 to enhance the independence of the Inspectors General, 

to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 

bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After 

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as 

an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the fiveminute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute rec-
2 

•HRES 701 EH 

ommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 

clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 

XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be consid-
3 

•HRES 701 EH 

ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 928 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Before the First Division,

March 12, 1962

No. 66552.

#### Firmenich, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/15432, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue herein is the same as that involved in *United States*v. *Dodge & Olcott, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 100, C.A.D. 737), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.