alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67783-67784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21597]


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

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 3 Chemistry Manufacturing and 
Controls for Drug Products.
    Date: November 29-30, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

[[Page 67784]]

    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1068, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Blvd., Room 1068, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-9087, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec8183839e89818d9eac818d8580c2828584c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d0002021f08000c1f2d000c040143030405430a021b">[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. 2023-21597 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>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 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 Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel NIH-DoD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory Pragmatic and/or Implementation Science Demonstration Projects.                    

*Date:*                         December 5, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         MARTA V Hamity, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892,                         *marta.hamity@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 26, 2023.

Victoria E. Townsend, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21575 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: billo2@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:46:09 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,

william Overholt

Springfield, MO 65810
From: slfdeselms@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:13 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,

sandra deselms

Pasadena, TX 77504
(Reap. Dec. 10789)

#### Arnold Schwinn & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 13502, etc.

(Decided July 8, 1964)

*Spray, Price, Townsend & Cushman*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve certain bicycle parts which were exported from Western Germany during the period from November 16, 1960 to December 26, 1962.

Stipulated facts, upon which these appeals are before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the items in question is statutory export value and that such value therefor is as follows:

> Merchandise Period of time Price

> Spokes 14G over *8%"*3/29/61-8/15/61 $4.70 M

> Spokes 15G over 8>á" 3/3/61-7/6/61 4.31 per M

> Spokes 15G up to 8%" 3/3/61-7/6/61 4.25 per M

> Spokes 14G from 10" to 12}4" 5/21/62-6/26/62 4.38 per M

> from to 3.65 per M

> 15G from 8" to 3.85 M

> 11/12/62-12/26/62 .392 each Hub 512b

> 10/10/60-10/30/61

> 3/16/61-5/3/61 .35 per pair Pedal 258J

> 10/10/60-8/15/61 .36 per pair Pedal 258M

> .253 per

> Pedal 158J 10/10/60-11/16/60 .33 pair

> Pedal 158M 10/10/60-11/16/60 .34 per pair

*373As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement have been abandoned. They are, therefore, dismissed as to all items except those hereinabove enumerated.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SHAWN J. CRUZE,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5744FDB

 C06-5064FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The one-year limitation period for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus began to run on

his most recent criminal conviction on December 5, 2000, and the one-year period expired on or

about December 6, 2001. Petitioner did not file his writ of habeas corpus challenging either of the

two convictions until late in 2005, and the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the petitions in

the above cases, finding that Petitioner has presented no facts or mitigating circumstances to warrant

any equitable tolling of the statute. 

Petitioner files objections, arguing as he did before the Magistrate Judge that owing to his

having been transferred repeatedly in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, he did not have his legal materials

available to him, and he also argues the incompetence of his counsel in handling his case. 

While Petitioner may have been in transit on February 28 and March 5 of 2001, he was not

Case 3:06-cv-05064-FDB Document 13 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

transferred again until January 18, of 2002. Thus, having reviewed the record, Petitioner’s

objections, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the

R&R must be adopted. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

2. Petitioner’s federal habeas petitions in the above cases are DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, Respondent and to

the Honorable J. Kelley Arnold. 

DATED this 31st day of May, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05064-FDB Document 13 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 83 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 83 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 83 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 83 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 4
CROSS Y

HORSESHOE

CORDES

BOX BAR

E_Z RANCH

CHAMBERS 2Y

SYCAMORE

COSANTI

RANCH

BLUEBELL

BADGER SPRINGS

WASH

A

g

u

a

F r i a

R i v

e r

Tonto National Forest

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

Black Canyon City

Cordes

Junction

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.

Map 6

Agua Fria

National Monument

Grazing Allotments

0 1 2

Miles

Interstate

Highway

Agua Fria

National Monument

Planning Area

Major Road

Minor Road

Major River, Streams or

Wash

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.

Allotment Boundary

Land Status

USFS

State

Private

City, County & State Parks

BLM
Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATION 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 Propell Technologies
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Huemoeller II, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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.





|/s/ John Huemoeller II                       | 
|-------------------------------------------- | 
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|May 30, 2014
From: baxterrbr@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:19:17 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,

Richard Rhodes

Ithaca, NY 14850
Before the Second Division,

February 13, 1958

No. 61555.

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

protest 286936-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.
Before Chief Judge Rao,

January 30, 1969

No. R69/1.

reappraisements R63/9472, etc. (New York).

#### Bud Berman Sportswear, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts, merchandise, and issues are similar in all material respects to those in *United States*v. *Bud Berman Sportswear, Inc.*(55 CCPA 28, C.A.D. 929), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for determining the value of the wearing apparel involved herein and that said value is represented by the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10703

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES EVANS, III

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-70-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent James Evans, III, has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Evans has filed a response. Our independent review of the

record, counsel’s brief, and Evans’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10703

2

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Evans’s motion for appointment of counsel

is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
No. 66539.

#### M. Tarlow and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/17202 (New York).

Wilson, Judge:

This suit has been submitted for decision on the following agreement between counsel for the respective parties:

> Mr. Honex : If the count please, I offer to stipulate with Government counsel that the merchandise described on invoice No. 2 in the entry as “2 cases white lamb head *plates;*2 cases white lamb leg plates; 1 case white lamb plates, white ear plates, white head plates,” and assessed with duty at 35 percent ad valorem, consists of merchandise the same in all material respects as the lambskin plates the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bros., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1643, or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1802, and therein held to be free of duty under paragraph 1681; that following the original liquidation of the entry a timely protest was filed against the assessment of duties at 35 percent ad valorem on lambskin plates, and thereafter the protest was submitted on a stipulation to the effect that the items marked “L” and initialed by the examiner consisted of lambskin plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bros., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1643, or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1802; that through inadvertence the examiner failed to mark with the letter “L” and initial the said lambskin plates described on invoice No. 2 in the entry; that thereafter the court held in a decision recorded in Abstract 61027 that the merchandise so marked was properly free of duty under paragraph 1681, and the Collector of Customs reliquidated the entry in accordance with said decision and judgment of the court; that no allowance of duties was made in the reliquidation of the entry for the said lambskin plates described on invoice No. 2 in the entry since they were not marked as aforesaid and were therefore not included within said decision and judgment of the court; that said protest against reliquidation relates only to said lambskin plates on invoice No. 2 on the entry.

> Miss Strum : * * * Therefore, the Government so stipulates.

On the agreed facts, we hold the merchandise, described on invoice No. 2 in the entry herein as “2 cases white lamb head plates; 2 cases white lamb leg plates; 1 case white lamb plates, white ear plates, white head plates,” properly free of duty under paragraph 1681 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as plates of undressed lambskins, as claimed.

*364To the extent indicated, the protest is sustained. As to all other claims and all other merchandise, the protest is overruled. Judgment will issue accordingly.

DISSENTING OPINION

Mollison, Judge:

The reliquidation of the entry against which this protest is directed was the result of a decision and judgment of this court, reported in *Harry Schoenfeld and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 357, Abstract 61027. I dissented from that decision and judgment, and, for the reasons there stated, I dissent from the foregoing decision and the judgment now rendered in this case.