alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 2 - 1180 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 - CE - 0 32 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
r-v1 mn 

ktrs= 6 , 

\_ ,LL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

F;LED 

DEC 2 8 2021 

DA 21-0394 

JACOB SMITH, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, et al., 

Respondent and Appellee. 

Bovve n Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Through counsel, Appellees City of Helena and Bryan Fischer ("the City") move 

this Court for dismissal of appeal because self-represented Appellant Jacob Smith has not 

filed his opening brief within the extended time. The brief was due on November 30, 2021. 

The City asserts that this failure warrants dismissal, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 13(3). Smith 

responds that he delivered his brief for mailing on October 27, 2021, when he was held at 

the Montana State Prison. He states that he has since been moved to CoreCivic (formerly 

known as Crossroads Correctional Center) in Shelby and that he only recently obtained 

access to a typewriter as well as his legal documents after being initially quarantined for 

COVID-19. Smith requests additional time to prepare and file his brief again. 

This Court is not inclined to impose a harsh sanction of dismissal here when the 

appellant is incarcerated, has been recently re-located, and has filed a response to the 

motion to dismiss. "While pro se litigants may be given a certain amount of latitude in 

their proceedings, they may not proceed in such a fashion as to abuse the judicial process, 

prejudicing the opposing party's interests as well as other litigants' access to the judicial 

system." Fed. Land Bank v. Heidema, 224 Mont. 64, 68, 727 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1986). 

While Smith's brief is now untimely, the City has not alleged it is prejudiced and we 

conclude that the circumstances warrant allowing the appeal to proceed. Therefore, 

12/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0394
IT IS ORDERED that the City's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and that this appeal 

rn ay proceed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Smith is GRANTED until January 28, 2022 to 

file his opening brief. Failure to file his opening brief within that time frame will result in 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Jacob Smith personally. 

DATED this 14/-- t day of December, 2021. 

LA•i2/ 1-

SLi 

Justices
~JO. 89-441 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990

IN RE THE PARRIAGE OF ANN ELIZABETH GREGORY THOMSEN, petitioner and Respondent, and CHRIS ARTHUR THOMSEN, Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Russell ~illner, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Linda L. ~arris; Harris li Ventrell, ~illinqs, Montana For Respondent: ~irginia A. Bryan; Wright, Tolliver & Guthals, ~illings, Montana

k-- Submitted on ~riefs:Dec. 21, 1989 ~ecided: February 15, 1990Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. Chris Arthur Thomsen appeals from the restrictions on his visitation with hisminor child in thismodification of a dissolution of marriage entered in the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. On reviewing the record,the Court concludesthat substantial evidence supports the finding that a psychologist testified that unsupervised visitationwithout treatment of Chriswould seriously endanger the child'sphysical and emotional health; Further, the record supports the District Court's conclusion that visitation, absent alcohol abuse evaluation and mental health counseling for Chris,would place thechild in an unnecessarilyhazardoussetting. We hold that substantial evidence supports the restriction of visitation rightsunder 5 40-4-217(1), MCA. Affirmed. Pursuant to Section I,Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 InternalOperating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe publishedby its filing as apublic document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company.We concur:
**I, Pasquale Natuzzi*****,*****certify that:**
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Natuzzi S.p.A.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and15d-15e) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction);
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.           /s/ Pasquale Natuzzi   Pasquale Natuzzi   Chief Executive OfficerJune 30, 2005
§ 135.375 Large transport category airplanes: Reciprocating engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person operating a reciprocating engine powered large transport category airplane may take off that airplane, unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight, would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from a point 50 feet directly above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purposes of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport the following is assumed: ( 1 ) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and in the most favorable direction in still air.
( 2 ) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway considering the probable wind velocity and direction (forecast for the expected time of arrival), the ground handling characteristics of the type of airplane, and other conditions such as landing aids and terrain, and allowing for the effect of the landing path and roll of not more than 50 percent of the headwind component or not less than 150 percent of the tailwind component.
( b ) An airplane that would be prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet paragraph (a)(2) of this section may be taken off if an alternate airport is selected that meets all of this section except that the airplane can accomplish a full stop landing within 70 percent of the effective length of the runway.
# EUR-Lex - 12002M - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002M

**Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version) - EU Treaty (Maastricht 1992) - **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0007 - 0007 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0145 - Consolidated version *

Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version)

EU Treaty (Maastricht 1992)

CONTENTS

I. TEXT OF THE TREATY

>TABLE>

II. PROTOCOLS (text not reproduced, with the exception of the four Protocols adopted by the Nice Intergovernmental Conference (see the end of this publication))

Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union

- Protocol (1) on Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (1997)

Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community

- Protocol (2) integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union (1997)

- Protocol (3) on the application of certain aspects of Article 14 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland (1997)

- Protocol (4) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland (1997)

- Protocol (5) on the position of Denmark (1997)

Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

- Protocol (6) on the Statute of the Court of Justice (2001) (text reproduced hereafter)

- Protocol (7) annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities (1992)

- Protocol (8) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol (1997)

- Protocol (9) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union (1997)

- Protocol (10) on the enlargement of the European Union (2001) (text reproduced hereafter)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24985-24986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10667]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec. 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 24, 2000, Eli-Elsohly 
Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, Mississippi 38655, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105).....................  II
Cocaine (9041).............................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Benzoylecqonine(9180)......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to bulk manufacture non-deuterated controlled 
substances for use as analytical standards and deuterated controlled 
substances for ause as internal standards.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is persently registered 
with DEA to manufacturer such substance may file comments or objections 
to the issance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to

[[Page 24986]]

the Deputy Assistance Administrator, office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than June 27, 2000.

    Dated: April 18, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Division Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-10667 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20257

Summary Calendar

 

MARTIN LEAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-93-3052) 

 

September 12, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Leal failed to timely appeal the district court’s

judgment affirming the denial of his disability benefits. Because

of this failure, this appeal is limited to a review of the district

court’s denial of Leal’s motion to amend the judgment under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b).
2

We affirm. A district court abuses its discretion in refusing

to grant relief under Rule 60(b) only in the rare case. First

Nationwide Bank v. Summer House Joint Venture, 902 F.2d 1197, 1200

(5th Cir. 1990). The court below did not abuse its discretion

here. Leal has already filed one application for disability

benefits for at least some of the time period covered by this

application; that application was denied, and the denial is now

final. To the extent that Leal seeks disability benefits prior to

December 21, 1987, he is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

See United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394,

421-22 (1966). Because Leal has raised nothing other than a

conclusory constitutional argument, the doctrine of Califano v.

Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-08 (1977), does not apply. See

Brandyburg v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 808, 810 (5th Cir. 1986).

To the extent that Leal seeks disability benefits post

December 31, 1987, he may not recover because his insured status

expired on that date. See Ivy V. Sullivan, 898 F.2d 1045, 1048

(5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10(b)  


  
 

  Consent of Independent Accountants    
  


We hereby consent to the use, in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-81553) of our report dated March 19, 2003, relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Protective Life Insurance Company and Subsidiaries, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the use
in this Registration Statement of our report dated March 17, 2003, on our audits of the financial statements of The Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement. 


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

April 29, 2003 









QuickLinks


Consent of Independent Accountants
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,236,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,616,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    831,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,095,329
<PP&E>                                         135,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,155,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,366,384
<BONDS>                                      2,297,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                         2,261
<OTHER-SE>                                     490,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,155,995
<SALES>                                      2,581,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,581,822
<CGS>                                          367,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,697,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,043
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                387,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            387,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   387,953
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 125.145 Firewall construction. Each firewall and shroud must— ( a ) Be so made that no hazardous quantity of air, fluids, or flame can pass from the engine compartment to other parts of the airplane;
( b ) Have all openings in the firewall or shroud sealed with close-fitting fireproof grommets, bushings, or firewall fittings;
( c ) Be made of fireproof material; and
( d ) Be protected against corrosion.
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Ron Howell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of HST Global, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2016;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: August 12, 2016By:\s\ Ron HowellRon HowellInterim Chief Financial Officer