Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the Lighting Ridge sale will not have an adverse effect on any of the species at issue. However, the Lighting Ridge EA does not suffice to show compliance with the Forest Act because it does not assess pileated woodpecker habitat by means of a valid forest-wide standard. 7 . We do not suggest that the Forest Service must adopt the R4 definition of old growth. It must, however, put in place and observe with respect to each site specific action a valid forest-wide standard for ensuring viable populations of old growth dependent species. 8 . We are aware that other courts have held that § 219.19 does not allow use of habitat as a proxy for population. Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1 (11th Cir.1999). See also Utah Environmental Congress v. Zieroth, 190 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1272 (D.Utah 2002) (<HOLDING>); Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 180 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing district courts authority to exclude opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert should it conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered (B) holding that  21919 unambiguously requires collection of population data (C) holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states (D) holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case (E) holding that because the statute requires commerce to use to the extent possible data from countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise commerce may not employ a methodology that requires using data from countries which almost certainly have no domestic production  at least not any meaningful production capable of having influence or effect
Output (English): recognizing district courts authority to exclude opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert should it conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered