alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: faithhealer1201@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:45:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. 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,

Barbara Bromstrup

South Holland, IL 60473
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

HARRY VERN FOX,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, Ph.D, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5063 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court will not consider plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation

[Dkts. #39, 40] as they were prepared by Richard Roy Scott. See Report and

Recommendation, p. 1, fn. 1 [Dkt. #37]. 

(2) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(3) The motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. # 28) is DENIED;

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 41 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 57740.

protests 204941-K and 207029-K (New York).

#### A. Wyszkowski *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protests were therefore overruled.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 7, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.212 Corporate and Foreign Bonds** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    The meetings 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 of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Career Development (Ks) and 
Conference Support (R13) Review.
    Date: November 9, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, Suite 920, 
6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alexander O. Komendantov, Ph.D., MS, Scientific 
Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16777a736e7778727364387d797b737872777862796056787f7e38717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="42232e273a232c2627306c292d2f272c26232c362d34022c2b2a6c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21489 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>
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-98664; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-044]

                    On August 30, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 5.32 to adopt a passive quote protection mechanism. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 12, 2023.[3]                                          No comments were received on the proposed rule change. On September 20, 2023, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (CBOE-2023-044).                

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98304 (September 6, 2023), 88 FR 62612.                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-22040 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Before Judge Ford,

March 27, 1969

No. R69/11.

reappraisements R66/14321, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Standard Brands Paint Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Standard Brands Paint*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 616, R.D. 11345), 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 of value for the ceramic or glass tiles involved herein and that said value is the invoice unit prices, net packed.
#### Franqui Bernal ARCINIEGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74578.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robbin K Blaya, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Franqui Bernal Arciniega, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review whether Arciniega has demonstrated the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Arciniega’s contention that his due process rights were violated when the IJ relied on incorrect information in assessing the hardship to his legal permanent resident father is not supported by the record and therefore does not raise a colorable due process challenge. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (“To be colorable ... the claim must have some possible validity”) (internal quotations omitted); *Ortiz v. INS,*179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.”).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 119-2 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 119 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 778 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 30, 2007.
Whereas beginning on October 21, 2007, Southern California experienced a number 
        of devastating wildfires destroying over five-hundred-thousand acres--
        the largest in the history of California--and over fourteen-hundred 
        homes and countless other properties;
Whereas high temperatures and erratic winds caused the multiple fires to rapidly 
        progress in the counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 
        Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and San Diego;
Whereas loss of life and serious injuries have resulted from the fires;
Whereas approximately one million residents of Southern California have been 
        forced to evacuate their homes and businesses due to the fires;
Whereas the effect of the wildfires on Southern California families and 
        businesses is still being felt;
Whereas thousands of firefighters from California and neighboring States and 
        countries continue to respond to the fires, risking health and safety 
        and exhibiting resilience and courage to rescue residents and fight the 
        blazes;
Whereas over 2,500 National Guardsmen and other active duty military personnel 
        are actively engaged in supporting firefighters and relief operations;
Whereas additional emergency personnel, such as law enforcement and medical 
        personnel, have coordinated with local authorities and firefighters and 
        have performed beyond the call of duty in the preservation and 
        protection of human lives;
Whereas hundreds of volunteers took time from their daily lives to help ensure 
        that evacuated families are sheltered, clothed, fed, and emotionally 
        comforted through this traumatic event;
Whereas it is clear that the continued commitment and heroism exhibited by 
        firefighters have saved countless lives, homes, and businesses;
Whereas the people of California and the nation recognize that the dedication of 
        firefighters will remain steadfast throughout the ongoing efforts; and
Whereas a major Federal disaster declaration was issued on October 24, 2007: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes and honors the heroic service, actions, and 
        sacrifices of first responders, National Guardsmen, and law enforcement 
        personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who 
        participated in responding to the October 21, 2007, outbreak of 
        wildfires in Southern California;
            (2) expresses its commitment to the residents of Southern California 
        as they begin to rebuild their community and their lives; and
            (3) vows its full support to and solidarity with the State of 
        California.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 8

EXPLANATION

——1040——_,
‘Structure contours on base of
oll rock" of Decorah formation

=)

‘Area of shallow lead pits

i
Shaft

HOLES DRILLED BY U.$. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Ore
Fair zine mineralization
Lean zinc mineralization

HOLES DRILLED BY DODGEVILLE MINING COMPANY
e
Ore
o

Fair zinc mineralization

°
Berren

Geologic cross sections
‘shown on plate 11

—ol2__is

Togosraphy by John F. Mink and Vance ¢: Kennedy
‘Structure contours, area of shallow lead pits,and location
(of some dail holes from Heyl, Lyons, and Agnew, 1951

MAP SHOWING TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE CROW BRANCH AREA

200 ° 200 Feet 369614 O—56 (In pocket) No. 2
Lotit 1 !

L .
Contour iterval 20 feet
Datu te mean so level
No. 57745.

petition 6930-R (Laredo).

#### Fuchs Shoe Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The president of the importing corporation testified that the actual purchase price of the merchandise was 65 cents per pair; that later he received a quotation of 6.25 pesos per pair, at which price an order was placed, and that he supplied the customs officials with said price; that he instructed his broker to enter the huaraches at 6.25 pesos per pair, rather than at the purchase price; that a conversion rate of 11.58 cents per peso was used, making the 6.25 pesos equal to 72.37 cents; and that he was shocked to learn that the appraiser had advanced the merchandise to 82 cents per pair, net packed, and called for an appeal to reappraisement. In the course of obtaining evidence to support the appeal, it was discovered that quotations were made by competitors at 73 *365cents per pair, and, therefore, it was agreed between counsel that such was the f. o. b. value of the merchandise in Mexico, net packed, rather than the appraised value. From a consideration of the evidence presented, it was held that in entering the merchandise at 72 cents United States currency per pair, based upon a price of 6.25 Mexican pesos, there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       24693 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            174693 
<PP&E>                                       39707 
<DEPRECIATION>                               10939 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1486348 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1611329 
<BONDS>                                     675000 
<COMMON>                                  20931832 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 198000 
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              (1181548)
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             37387 
<CGS>                                         5381 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                43131 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             45970 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           12500 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                5898 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (52934)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
## Appendix B

X-ray Fluorescence Based Multi-Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring System Supporting Documents

Version 1.0

November, 2005Table of Contents

1. Draft Method 301 Evaluation of Candidate Conditional Methods, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC ., Volume I, June 10, 2005. a. X-ray Based Filter Methods (XFM) b. Multi-Metals Instrumental Analyzer Procedure (XACT-IAP) c. Quantitative Reference Aerosol Generator (QAG)

2. Draft Performance Specification YY: Specifi cations and Test Procedures for X-ray

Fluorescence Based Multi-metals Con tinuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC., Draft Method 301

Evaluation of Candidate Conditional Met hods, Volume II, Appendix F, June 8, 2005

3. Draft Procedure Z: Quality Assurance Requirements for X-ray Fluorescence Based

Multi-metals Continuous Em ission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC., Dr aft Method 301 Evaluation of Candidate Conditional Methods, Volume II, Appendix F, June 9, 2005

4. Draft Determination of Metal Emissions fr om Stationary Sources Using Filters and Solid Sorbents with X-ray Fluorescence Analysis, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC., Draft Method 301 Evaluation of Candida te Conditional Methods, Volume II, Appendix B, June 10, 2005.

5. Standard Operating Procedure for Genera ting a Quantitative Multi-Metals Reference Aerosol with the QAG, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC,. June 2005
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

PROPET USA, INC.’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE - 1

(C06-0186 MAT)

SEADOCS:292271.1

MILLER NASH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

TELEPHONE: (206) 622-8484

4400 TWO UNION SQUARE

601 UNION STREET, SE ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2352

Honorable Mary Alice Theiler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PROPET USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LLOYD SHUGART,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-0186 MAT

PROPET USA, INC.’S PROPOSED VOIR 

DIRE

1. Do you know anyone who works for the court?

2. Do you know any of the lawyers in this case, including Mr. Bruce Kaser, Mr. Jim 

Phillips, Ms. Aubrey Seffernick, Mr. Phillip Mann, or Mr. John Whitaker?

3. Do you know anyone who works for any of the law firms that are involved in this case, 

including Miller Nash, Vantage Law, Mann Law Group or Whitaker Law Group?

4. Is anyone in your family a lawyer?

5. Do you know any of the witnesses that will be called in this case, including Mr. Jack 

Hawkins, Mr. Lloyd Shugart, Mr. Jon Payne, Mr. Bruce Danielson, Mr. Ken Vensell, and Mr. 

Ken Johnson?

6. Do you know anyone who works at Propet USA?

7. Do you know anyone who works at Studio 413?

8. Are you a commercial photographer? 

9. Do you know anyone who is a commercial photographer?

Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 110 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 3
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

PROPET USA, INC.’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE - 2

(C06-0186 MAT)

SEADOCS:292271.1

MILLER NASH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

TELEPHONE: (206) 622-8484

4400 TWO UNION SQUARE

601 UNION STREET, SE ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2352

DATED this 17th day of September, 2007.

MILLER NASH LLP

/s/ James L. Phillips

James L. Phillips, P.C.

WSB No. 13186

james.phillips@millernash.com

(206) 622-8484

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Propet USA, Inc.

Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 110 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 3
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

Certificate of Service - 1

(C06-0186 MAT)

SEADOCS:292271.1

MILLER NASH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

TELEPHONE: (206) 622-8484

4400 TWO UNION SQUARE

601 UNION STREET, SE ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2352

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of September, 2007, I electronically filed 

PROPET USA, INC.’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to:

Philip P. Mann

MANN LAW GROUP

1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 274-5100

mannlaw@comcast.net

phil@mannlawgroup.com

eryn@mannlawgroup.com

John Whitaker

WHITAKER LAW GROUP

755 Winslow Way East, Suite 304

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

john@wlawgrp.com

(206) 319-1575

Executed at Seattle, Washington, this 17th day of September, 2007.

/s/ James L. Phillips

James L. Phillips, WSB No. 13186

MILLER NASH LLP

Email: james.phillips@millernash.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Propet USA, Inc.

Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 110 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 3 of 3