alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 79302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22138]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 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: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS 
Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research 
Study Section.
    Date: October 28-29, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G74, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Hailey P. Weerts, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G74, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5931, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9a1a8a0a5acb0e7beacacbbbdba89a7a0a1e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e060f07020b1740190b0b1c1a1d2e00070640090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 23, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-22138 Filed 9-26-24; 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>
United States Office of Personnel Management

Healthcare and Insurance

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 23-205 Date: December 6, 2023

Subject: Contraception

On June 23, 2023, President Biden signed Executive Order 14101, “Strengthening Access 

to Affordable, High-Quality Contraception and Family Planning Services.” Section 4(a)

directed OPM to educate Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program enrollees 

and covered family members on how to access affordable, high-quality contraception, 

including through public awareness initiatives that provide timely and accurate 

information about such access. Last year, OPM released Carrier Letter 2022-17 to 

ensure robust coverage of contraception for all FEHB enrollees and covered family 

members. This Benefits Administration Letter informs Agency Benefits Officers of how 

to assist their employees to understand the comprehensive contraception coverage that 

FEHB enrollees and their covered family members are entitled to.

Agency Benefits Officers should use their agency’s preferred communications vehicles 

(e.g., email, intranet, or newsletters) to distribute a link to OPM's website with 

information on FEHB contraception coverage. The webpage has a print function so 

Agency Benefit Officers can distribute hard copies of the information. 

For questions concerning this Benefits Administration Letter, please contact your 

Agency’s Headquarters Benefits Officer. If you do not know who this person is, please 

refer to OPM’s list of agencies and their Headquarters Benefits Officers. 

Sincerely,

Laurie Bodenheimer

Associate Director

Healthcare and Insurance
*

 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. 99-50696

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SKYLER STEPHEN NEWSOME,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-98-CR-74-5

___________________________________________

April 14, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Skyler Stephen Newsome appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for

aiding and abetting the possession and distribution of “crack” cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He asserts that the district court erred in

denying his pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea, in failing to hold an

evidentiary hearing thereon, and in sentencing him.
 

2United States v. Dabdoub-Diaz, 599 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that defendant’s

conclusional allegation unsupported by specifics did not justify a hearing to relitigate

representations made in open court). 

 

3Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

119 S. Ct. 247 (1998). 

 

4United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1992). 

2

Newsome sought to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the prosecution

misled him about his sentence. This allegation was insufficient to warrant an

evidentiary hearing, as it was found to be vague, unsubstantiated, and contrary to his

sworn statement at rearraignment that, other than his discussions with his attorney

concerning the sentencing guidelines, no one had made any promise, prophecy, or

prediction regarding his sentence.2

Considering the totality of the circumstances, Newsome did not establish a fair

and just reason for the withdrawal of his guilty plea.3 The district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying the motion for same. Finally, because Newsome knowingly

and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, the allegations of sentencing

errors will not be considered.4

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3166 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3166

   To amend section 520E of the Public Health Service Act to require 
    States and their designees receiving grants for development or 
 implementation of statewide suicide early intervention and prevention 
  strategies to consult with each Federally recognized Indian tribe, 
    tribal organization, and urban Indian organization in the State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2015

 Mr. Grijalva (for himself, Mr. Cole, and Mrs. Napolitano) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 520E of the Public Health Service Act to require 
    States and their designees receiving grants for development or 
 implementation of statewide suicide early intervention and prevention 
  strategies to consult with each Federally recognized Indian tribe, 
    tribal organization, and urban Indian organization in the State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Suicide Prevention 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES, TRIBAL 
              ORGANIZATIONS, AND URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS IN 
              DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STATEWIDE SUICIDE EARLY 
              INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION STRATEGIES.

    Subsection (e) of section 520E of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 290bb-36) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Consultation with federally recognized indian tribes, 
        tribal organizations, and urban indian organizations.--As a 
        condition on the receipt of a grant or cooperative agreement 
        under this section for development or implementation of a 
        statewide early intervention and prevention strategy, a State 
        or an eligible entity designated by a State pursuant to 
        subsection (b)(1)(B) shall agree to consult with each Federally 
        recognized Indian tribe and tribal organization (as defined in 
        the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) and 
        each urban Indian organization (as defined in the Indian Health 
        Care Improvement Act) regarding development and implementation 
        of such strategy.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3518 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3518

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the use of amounts 
 from the Asset Forfeiture Fund for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/
  Eradication Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2015

 Mr. Ted Lieu of California (for himself and Mr. Amash) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the use of amounts 
 from the Asset Forfeiture Fund for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/
  Eradication Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Civil Asset Forfeiture Funding 
for Marijuana Suppression Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON USE OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE FUND FOR THE 
              DOMESTIC CANNABIS SUPPRESSION/ERADICATION PROGRAM.

    Section 524 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Notwithstanding subsection (c) of this section, beginning in 
fiscal year 2015, and for each fiscal year thereafter, no amounts in 
the Fund may be used for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/Eradication 
Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, or any substantially 
similar program.''.

SEC. 3. NO AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF THE DOMESTIC 
              CANNABIS SUPPRESSION/ERADICATION PROGRAM.

    Notwithstanding section 981(e) of title 18, United States Code, no 
property may be transferred to a Federal agency or a State and local 
agency, if that property is used for any purpose pertaining to the 
Domestic Cannabis Suppression/Eradication Program of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, or any substantially similar program.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) expends a large amount of resources on enforcing 
prohibitions on marijuana. The DEA administrator's comments about the 
relative harm of marijuana support Congress's belief that the DEA's 
marijuana prohibition policy is an inappropriate use of resources.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to New 
Varieties Development & Management Corporation of Lakeland, Florida, an 
exclusive license to the variety of citrus claimed in U.S. Plant Patent 
Application Serial No. 12/931,765, ``Mandarin Tree Named US Early 
Pride,'' filed on February 10, 2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's rights in this 
plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this variety as New Varieties Development & 
Management Corporation of Lakeland, Florida has submitted a complete 
and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive 
license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and 
conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive 
license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of 
this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives 
written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the 
license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-15468 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

y1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143322

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143322 COA: 295712 Ottawa CC: 09-033667-FC OUVINAY XAYSANA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
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 Quarterly Report of Cypress Sharpridge Investments, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frances Spark, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: July 22, 2010



/s/ FRANCES R. SPARKFrances R. SparkChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: __2011- NM-____118______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code), Michael J. Barrist, Chief Executive Officer of NCOGroup, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 (the “Report”) that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | November 13,  2009  |   | /s/  Michael J. Barrist |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Michael  J. Barrist      |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
#### Leonard SANDERS v. STATE.

No. 17750.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1935.

Wilkinson & Wilkinson, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

This is a prosecution had under the provisions of what is known as the Dean Law (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended). Following what has been said by us in an opinion this day handed down in Guy Meadows v. State, 88 S.W.(2d) 481, the judgment in this case will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH

C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq

.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60532

Summary Calendar

LARRY NORWOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:97-CV-177)

March 8, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Norwood appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment in his action

claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act 1 and various state law

claims.

The district court granted summary judgment to Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.,

finding that Norwood was not “substantially limit ed in a major life activity”

because he could perform welding for other employers and that Norwood was not2 International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc. , 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991).

3 D orsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Univs. , 940 F.2d 121 (5th Cir.

1991).

4 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

2 a “qualified individual with a disability” because he could not perform the essential

duties of a welder for Ingalls. The district court also found that Ingalls did not

regard Norwood as being disabled and that Norwood’s state law claims we r e

preempted by federal law.

On appeal of a summary judgment our review of the record is plenary 2 and

we app ly the same standard as that used by the district court. 3 We view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and if we find no genuine

dispute of a material fact, deem summary judgment appropriate. 4

Our review of the record and briefs discloses no reversible error in the grant

of summary judgment to Ingalls. Accordingly, on the facts as found, the authorities

cited, and analysis made by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion granting

Ingalls’ motion fo r summary judgment signed July 27, 1998 and filed July 28,

1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED. Ingalls’ motion to strike plaintiff’s

brief or to dismiss the appeal is DENIED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3215 

To prohibit any person from soliciting or knowingly acquiring, receiving, 

or accepting a donation of human fetal tissue for any purpose other 

than disposal of the tissue if the donation affects interstate commerce 

and the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2015 

Mr. LAMBORN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit any person from soliciting or knowingly acquiring, receiving, or accepting a donation of human fetal 

tissue for any purpose other than disposal of the tissue 

if the donation affects interstate commerce and the tissue 

will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End Trafficking of 

5 the Terminated Unborn Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3215 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING RESEARCH 

2 ON FETAL TISSUE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO 

3 AN INDUCED ABORTION. 

4 Section 498A(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 289g–1(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as fol7 lows: 

8 ‘‘(2) SOURCE OF TISSUE.—Human fetal tissue 

9 may be used in research carried out under para10 graph (1) only if the tissue is obtained pursuant to 

11 a spontaneous abortion or a stillbirth.’’; 

12 (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking subpara13 graph (A) and redesigning subparagraphs (B) and 

14 (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; 

15 (3) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘or in16 duced’’; and 

17 (4) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘or induced’’. 

18 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITATION OR ACCEPT19 ANCE OF A DONATION OF FETAL TISSUE PUR20 SUANT TO AN INDUCED ABORTION. 

21 Subsection (b) of section 498B of the Public Health 

22 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g–2) is amended to read as 

23 follows: 

24 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITATION OR AC25 CEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF FETAL TISSUE PURSUANT

26 TO AN ABORTION.—It shall be unlawful for any person 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3215 IH

1 to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a dona2 tion of human fetal tissue for any purpose other than dis3 posal of the tissue if the donation affects interstate com4 merce and the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to 

5 an induced abortion.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS