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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:53:15 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 Namken

Gamerco, NM 87317
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32002R1252

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1252/2002 of 11 July 2002 concerning the provisional authorisation of a new additive in feedingstuffs (Text with EEA relevance)***Official Journal L 183 , 12/07/2002 P. 0010 - 0011*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1252/2002

of 11 July 2002

concerning the provisional authorisation of a new additive in feedingstuffs

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2205/2001(2), and in particular Articles 3 and 9e thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Directive 70/524/EEC provides that new additives and new uses of additives may be authorised following the review of an application made in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive.

(2) Article 9e(1) of the Directive provides that provisional authorisation of a new additive or new use of an additive may be given if the conditions of Article 3a(b) to (e) are satisfied and if it is reasonable to assume, in view of the available results, that when used in animal nutrition it has one of the effects referred to in Article 2(a). Such provisional authorisation may be given for a period up to four years in the case of additives referred to in Part II of Annex C to the Directive.

(3) The assessment of the dossier submitted in respect of the preservative preparation described in the Annex to this Regulation shows that it satisfies all the conditions set by Article 3a of Directive 70/524/EEC and may therefore be authorised on a provisional basis for a four-year period.

(4) The assessment of the dossier shows that certain procedures may be required to protect workers from exposure to the additives. Such protection should however be assured by the application of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(3).

(5) The Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition has delivered a favourable opinion with regard to the safety of the preservative under the conditions described in the said Annex.

(6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The preparation belonging to the group "Preservatives" listed in the Annex to the present Regulation is authorised for use as additive in animal nutrition under the conditions laid down in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 July 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 297, 15.11.2001, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

ANNEX

">TABLE>"
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 25, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), 1EdTech Consortium, Inc. (“1EdTech Consortium”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Authentica Solutions, San Antonio, TX; Elula, Inc., Astoria, NY; Siemens, Munich, GERMANY; and Follett Higher Education, Westchester, IL, have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, LearnPlatform, Raleigh, NC; Willo Labs, Whitestown, IN; Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ; Pioneer RESA, Cleveland, GA; California CC Tech Center, Oroville, CA; OESIS, Santa Monica, CA; Northwest Tri County, Edinboro, PA; and Hamilton County, Chattanooga, TN, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 1EdTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 8, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 13, 2023 (88 FR 44843).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-22254 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 1 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 2 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 3 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 4 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 5 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 6 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 7 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 8 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 9 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 10 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 11 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 12 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 13 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 14 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 15 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC   Document 240    Filed 08/10/07   Page 16 of 16
(Reap. Dec. 10818)

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc., a/c Fadex Commercial Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 785919.

(Decided August 31, 1964)

*Barnes, Richardson & CoTburn*for the plaintiff.

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

*402Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, as follows:

> 1. That tbe merchandise here involved consists of automobiles imported after tbe effective date of tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956; that said automobiles are identified on tbe Final List published by tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury pursuant to said Customs Simplification Act (T.D. 54521), and are subject to appraisement under tbe provisions of Section 402a of tbe Tariff Act of 1980 as amended.

> 2. That on or about tbe dates of exportation of tbe merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in tbe country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to tbe United States.

> 3. That on or about tbe said dates of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in tbe United States.

> 4. That the cost of production as defined in Section 402a (f) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930 as amended of the automobiles involved herein is deutschemarks 2968.00 for tbe one-tone model and deutschemarks 2983.00 for tbe two-tone model; plus deutschemarks 180.00 for “Saxomat,” plus deutschemarks 35.00 per set for whitewall tires, plus deutschemarks 2.20 per set for protective covers for seats and backs.

> 5. That this appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, tbe same being limited to tbe merchandise and tbe issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement and that such values were deutsche marks 2968 for the one-tone model and deutsche marks 2983 for the two-tone model; plus deutsche marks 180 for “Saxomat,” plus deutsche marks 2.20 per set for protective covers for seats and backs, plus deutsche marks 35 per set for whitewall tires.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 6 of 6
----

| Parent                                    |   | Subsidiary                             |   | Percentage      ofOwnership |   | State      ofIncorporation      orOrganization |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   |                                   |   |                        |   |                                           |
| American      Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. |   | American      Bank of New Jersey       |   | 100%                        |   | Federal                                        |
| American      Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. |   | ASB      Investment Corp.              |   | 100%                        |   | New      Jersey                                |
| American      Bank of New Jersey          |   | American      Savings Investment Corp. |   | 100%                        |   | New      Jersey                                |
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [RTID 0648-XD449]

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice; public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The MAFMC's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will meet via webinar to develop recommendations for future Spiny Dogfish specifications.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Monday, November 6, 2023, from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the MAFMC calendar prior to the meeting at                         *www.mafmc.org.*

*Council address:*                         Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331;                         *www.mafmc.org.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will meet to review options for future specifications and management measures, and make any appropriate recommendations.

## Special Accommodations

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

*Authority:*16 U.S.C. 1801*et seq.*

Dated: September 29, 2023.

Rey Israel Marquez,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2023-22124 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
From: junbugrn@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:59:05 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,

Elizabeth Eitutis

Navarre, FL 32566
III

Calendar No. 250

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 48

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile

technology from Russia to Iran.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BURNS, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. INHOFE,

Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BRYAN,

Mr. CLELAND, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DODD, Mr.

ENZI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr.

HUTCHINSON, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MACK, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. WARNER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. BREAUX, Mr.

HELMS, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. REID) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

NOVEMBER 4, 1997

Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation

of missile technology from Russia to Iran.

Whereas there is substantial evidence missile technology and

technical advice have been provided from Russia to Iran,

in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime;
2

SCON 48 RS

Whereas these violations include providing assistance to Iran

in developing ballistic missiles, including the transfer of

wind tunnel and rocket engine testing equipment;

Whereas these technologies give Iran the capability to deploy

a missile of sufficient range to threaten United States

military installations in the Middle East and Persian

Gulf, as well as the territory of Israel, and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Turkey; and

Whereas President Clinton has raised with Russian President

Boris Yeltsin United States concerns about these activities and the Russian response has to date been inadequate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the President should demand that the Gov4 ernment of Russia take concrete actions to stop gov5 ernmental and nongovernmental entities in the Rus6 sian Federation from providing missile technology

7 and technical advice to Iran, in violation of the Mis8 sile Technology Control Regime;

9 (2) if the Russian response is inadequate, the

10 United States should impose sanctions on the re11 sponsible Russian entities in accordance with Execu12 tive Order 12938 on the Proliferation of Weapons of

13 Mass Destruction, and reassess cooperative activities

14 with Russia;
3

SCON 48 RS

1 (3) the threshold under current law allowing for

2 the waiver of the prohibition on the release of for3 eign assistance to Russia should be raised; and

4 (4) our European allies should be encouraged to

5 take steps in accordance with their own laws to stop

6 such proliferation.
Calendar No. 250

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 48

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding

Iran.proliferation of missile technology from Russia to

NOVEMBER 4, 1997

Reported without amendment
Before the Third Division,

July 28, 1953

No. 57448.

#### Donald W. Johnson *v.*United States,

protest 194253-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ELIAS CASTANEDA-GOMEZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-199M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged: 

Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 2.

Date of Detention Hearing: May 25, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant is a citizen of Mexico, and has no ties to this community or to the

Western District of Washington.

(2) Defendant has stipulated to detention because of his immigration issues, but

reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

(3) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

Case 2:06-cr-00192-JCC Document 18 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00192-JCC Document 18 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2