alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21443]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; TRND1 Chemistry Manufacturing and 
Controls for Drug Substances.
    Date: November 2-3, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Director, National Center for 
Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1066, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-
0813, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533b363d213a222625133e323a3f7d3d3a3b7d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d0508031f041c181b2d000c040143030405430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21443 Filed 9-28-23; 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>
No. 59767.

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 173819-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: cvyhonsky@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:20:40 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,

Carol Vyhonsky

Melbourne, FL 32901
Case No. 10,227.

#### NICHOLLS v. FEARSON et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 703.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1826.2

Usury — What is.

If a promissory note, indorsed by the defendants, without an understanding that they were not to be responsible upon their indorsement, be discounted by the plaintiff at a rate exceeding the lawful rate of interest for the time the note had to run, the transaction is usurious.

[See case No. 226.]

Assumpsit, against the indorsers of W. Stewart’s note for $101, at sixty days.

The evidence was that the defendants, haying received this note in a fair transaction, took it to the plaintiff’s shop, with their own indorsement on it, and asked him what he would give them for it; the plaintiff replied $97, to-which the defendants agreed, and received the money.

Mr. Coxe, for defendant,

prayed the court to instruct the jury; and THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contrfl,) did instruct them, that if they believed, from the said evidence, that the plaintiff received the said note from the defendants with their in-dorsement thereon, and without an understanding that they were not to be responsible upon their said indorsement, and that the plaintiff paid therefor only the sum of $97, the transaction was usurious, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

2

 [Reversed in 7 Pet. (32 U. S.) 103.]

MORSELL, Circuit Judge,

thought the whole subject ought to have been left to the jury without instruction from the court.

Mr. Key, for plaintiff, then prayed two instructions which THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, not sitting) refused to give, because the evidence did not warrant the statement of facts upon which the prayers were founded.

Reversed by the supreme court February, 1833, 7 Pet. [32 U. S.] 103.
No. 66496.

#### Karl Heitz Import Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/5156 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic slide frames or mounts similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64154, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: millerjwbj2054@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41:45 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,

Beverly Miller

Peru, IN 46970
From: rjr81psmc@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:47:06 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,

Robert Rocco

Mullica Hill, NJ 08062
No. 68148.

#### Julius Feist *v.*United States,

protests 62/13380, 63/3526, and 62/17165 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of map measures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kaufman & Vinson Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Ted Aaron McCRACKEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph M. NATALE, Defendant—Appellee, and John Doe, Defendant.

No. 05-1200.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 2005.

Decided Aug. 8, 2005.

Ted Aaron McCracken, Appellant Pro Se. Robert C. Ekstrand, Ekstrand & Ekstrand, L.L.P., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ted Aaron McCracken appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge granting defendant Natale’s motion for summary judgment, and imposing sanctions under Fed.R.CivJP. 11. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See McCracken v. Natale,*No. CA-04-50-5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.0
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m(a) or 78o(d); 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 31, 2009
    By:

/s/
A. Peyton Bush, IIIA. Peyton Bush, IIIPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  March 31, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Donna T. GuerraDonna T. GuerraSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to
Hibernia Homestead Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: annamaven@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:31:14 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,

Anna Derry

Rockville, MD 20850
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
(the “Report”) of Green Stream Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, the undersigned
James C. DiPrima, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:



| | (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.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: October 18, 2022 | /s/ __James C. DiPrima_________________________                                         
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | Name: James C. DiPrima
Title: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director
|                        | (Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer)
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 SHOW CAUSE ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

POTENTIALS DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT

NETWORK CORP.,

Defendant.

 NO. 05-1888JLR 

 SHOW CAUSE ORDER REQUIRING 

 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION 

 REGARDING DIVERSITY 

 JURISDICTION

 

The complaint in this action provides the court with an insufficient basis to assess

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is ordered within seven days of this order

to serve and file a submission identifying the state where each Defendant corporation “has

been incorporated and . . . has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

Plaintiff shall also state its basis for alleging that the amount in controversy in this action

satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). If attorneys’ fees form part of the amount in controversy,

Plaintiff shall state its basis for alleging that the fees are recoverable. Defendant’s response

to Plaintiff’s submission, if any, shall be filed and served within seven days of the date of

Plaintiff’s submission. 

Dated this 1st day of December, 2005.A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01888-JLR Document 4 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 1 of 1

Potentials Development Inc v. International Assessment Network Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 69273.

#### Lafayette Brass Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/21578, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21599]



[[Page 67786]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; TRND 5: Pharmacology Studies, 
Animal Model Development & Related Services for Drug Development..
    Date: November 15, 2023.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1073, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Blvd., Room 1073, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0810, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae6e5fff8eeeff9a4fae5e4e9efcae4e3e2a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="caa6a5bfb8aeafb9e4baa5a4a9af8aa4a3a2e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21599 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>