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

### FAA - 2013 - 0239 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 087 - 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**
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

27

28

ORDER — 1

United States v. Devonne Michael Lee, et al., Case No. CR 06-062 JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 ) CASE NO. CR 06-062 JLR

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) ORDER 

 )

DEVONNE MICHAEL LEE, and )

DEANDRE HOWARD BRADFORD, )

 )

Defendants. ) )

This Court having considered the stipulation of the parties hereby GRANTS the

parties' request for a continuance of the trial date and pre-trial motions cutoff date. 

Defendants Devonne Michael Lee and Deandre Howard Bradford each indicated his

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a speedy trial by executing a

written waiver of his right to a speedy trial through June 30, 2006.

In view of the parties' agreement to continue the trial date, for the reasons stated

in their stipulation, each defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver or

anticipated waiver of his right to a speedy trial, the parties' desire to continue to engage

in plea discussions, the complexity of the case, the number witnesses, and the interest

of the public in ensuring the accused adequate, effective, and continued representation

by counsel presently assigned, this Court finds that the ends of justice served by

granting a continuance outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 2:06-cr-00062-JLR Document 26 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

ORDER — 2

United States v. Devonne Michael Lee, et al., Case No. CR 06-062 JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

The parties motion for continuance is GRANTED. Trial is reset for June 19,

2006, at 1:30 p.m. The Pre-trial Motion cutoff date is reset for May 6, 2006. The

time from the filing of the stipulated motion through the new trial date shall be

excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h)(8)(A).

Dated this 4th day of April, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/ John J. Lulejian 

JOHN J. LULEJIAN

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

700 Union Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1270

Telephone: (206) 553-7970

Facsimile: (206) 553-0755

E-mail: John.Lulejian@usdoj.gov 

Case 2:06-cr-00062-JLR Document 26 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2
“I'm too little to play with a chemistry set, but I’m
old enough to watch and learn.”

“Soy muy pequefio para jugar con juegos de quimica, pero mi
hermano mayor me permite observar.”


“Mommy always watches us when we make
cookies in the toy electric stove.”

“Mama siempre observa cuando mi hermana mayor y yo
hacemos galletas en la estufa eléctrica de juguete.”



a/

S

r=

=|
C—

2

Ne

CE
C

“1 have my broken toys fixed so

that they can’t hurt me.’’

“Le doy a arreglar a papd mis juguetes
rotos para que no me hagan dafio.”


“T help by keeping baby away from tiny toys that might
be swallowed.”
“Ayudo a mama a mantener al bebé alejado de juguetes
pequefiitos que se puedan tragar.”


_

“Toys that make loud noises could hurt my ears.”’

“Los juguetes que hacen mucho ruido puedan afectar mis
oidos.”


FOR
KIDS’

POR EL
BIEN DE
LOS NINOS

THINK
TOY
SAFETY

PIENSE EN
JUGUETES
SEGUROS

Coloring Book

Libro de Colorear

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Comision de Seguridad de Productos para el Consumidor de los Estados Unidos


“Draw your own safe toy.”
“Dibuja un juguete seguro.”

11.


“Teddy needs new eyes .

that won’t come off and be
swallowed.”

“Mi osito necesita ojos que no se salgan para evitar que me los
J
trague.”

10.


“Toys that fly might hurt someone. [I’m careful
with my airplane.”

“Los juguetes que vuelan puedan herir a alguien. Por eso
tengo cuidado al usar mi aeroplano.”


“We read the directions together.’”’ ~
“Leemos las instrucciones juntos.”



trip and fall.’’

“Yo guardo bien mis juguetes para evitar que
otros tropiecen con ellos y se caigan.”


jas) | Ge

Sig ais
C

“We look for safe toys when we go to the toy store.”

“Buscamos juguetes seguros cuando vamos a la tienda de
juguetes.”

I, |
A Aa
AN -
Oe


12.

0C930s.

“Draw your own unsafe toy.’
“‘Dibjua un juguete peligroso.”

US Government Parting Oftee 987 417 wo2rTE*7E

r
No. 68188.

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 62/12378 (New York).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
July 15, 1954

No. 58279.

Suit 4780.

#### Jacobus F. Frank *v.*United States.

C. D. 1514 affirmed April 9, 1954. C. A. D. 562.
Before the Second Division,

October 17, 1966

No. P66/271. —

#### Ford Motor Company *v.*United States, protest 62/6577 (Detroit).

Kao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of merchandise (parts of engines), covered by the foregoing protests (said items being listed in schedule “A,” which was attached to and made a part of the decision), are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ford Motor Company*v. *United States*(51 CCPA 23, C.A.D. 831), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21830]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure; Meeting of the 
Judicial Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure; notice of open 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a 
meeting in a hybrid format with remote attendance options on January 4, 
2024 in Austin, TX. The meeting is open to the public for observation 
but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be 
posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: January 4, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b193e272e3808242626223f3f2e2e14182e28392e3f2a39320b2a24653e3828243e393f38652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1644637a736555797b7b7f626273734945737564736277646f56777938636575796364626538717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2023-21830 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


           I, Joseph B. Parsons, as Chief Financial Officer of Kasper A.S.L.,
Ltd. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 29,
2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Dated:  May 13, 2003

                                    /s/ Joseph B. Parsons
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Joseph B. Parsons,
                                    Chief Financial Officer of the Company






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       2,732,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,495,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    885,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,847,375
<PP&E>                                       1,980,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                 984,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,151,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          425,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,566
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,525,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,151,686
<SALES>                                      5,215,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,215,184
<CGS>                                        2,629,177
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,629,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,602,934
<INCOME-TAX>                                   500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,102,934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,102,934
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        


</TABLE>
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

ROBERT WARD GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5837 FDB/KLS

AMENDED ORDER EXTENDING

PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO RESPOND

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 97). Prior

to the filing of Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. (Dkt. # 85

and 86). Those motions were denied, but the parties were directed to confer and the discovery

deadline was extended until October 10, 2007. (Dkt. # 99).

Accordingly, the Clerk shall re-note Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 97)

until November 9, 2007. Plaintiff’s brief and affidavits in opposition to the motion shall be filed

and served not later than November 5, 2007. Defendants may file a reply not later November 9,

2007.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 111 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1163

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Steve Euans, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 6, 2003

 Filed: June 19, 2003

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steve Euans pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and

to possess pseudoephedrine or ephedrine pills, intending and having reasonable cause

to believe that the chemical would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing, after acknowledging that the parties had

stipulated to and the presentence report (PSR) recommended a 2-level role
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), the district court1 instead imposed a 3-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), explaining that there were five or more

participants in the criminal activity. Granting the government’s motion for a small

substantial-assistance departure, the court sentenced Euans to 200 months

imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Euans’s counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and Euans has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the district court should

not have applied the role enhancement, that he should have been granted a larger

departure, and that his sentence was disproportionate to the sentences of his coconspirators.

Euans may not challenge the applicability of a 2-level role increase under

section 3B1.1(c) because he specifically stipulated to it in his plea agreement, see

United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995); and the district court did

not plainly err in sua sponte imposing a further 1-level increase under section

3B1.1(b) based upon the involvement of five or more participants, as there is no

dispute that five or more participants were actually involved in the conspiracy, and

the timely received PSR afforded sufficient notice of the enhancement to satisfy due

process, see United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008, 1013 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review); United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1473-74 (8th Cir.

1993) (affirming sua sponte 3-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(b)). The extent of

the substantial-assistance departure is unreviewable, see United States v. Dutcher, 8

F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993), and Euans may not rely on the sentences of his coconspirators as a “yardstick” for his own, see United States v. Thompson, 51 F.3d

122, 126 (8th Cir. 1995).
-3-

We have further reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment

is affirmed. We now grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
From: ardmc@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:50:54 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,

Ardythe McCaleb

Minneapolis, MN 55426
EXHIBIT A

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

HOURLY RATE SHEET

Derek Newman $325

John Whitaker $310

Roy Berg $300

Roger Townsend $275

Jessica Newman $250

S. Christopher Winter $250

Randy Moeller $235

John Du Wors $215

Michael Spain $210

Derek Linke $175

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 129-2 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 129 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 60239.

protests 221787-K and 223329-K (Bridgeport).

#### Scovill Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass shells similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59805, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Mr. James D. Giattina, Director Water Protection Division 

## Georgia Departmentof Natural Resources 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., S.E., Suite 1152 East,Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9000 MarkWilliams, Commissioner Judson H. Turner, Director Environmental Protection Division 404/656-4713 FAX: 404/651-5778 September 10, 2012

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Dear Mr. Giattina: RE: Proposed NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Georgia 401 WaterQualityCertification

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has reviewed the proposed NPDESVessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP)forthe purpose of providing State certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The permits complywith the applicable provisions ofCWA Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307. To be consistent with Georgia law, the following requirement must be added to the permits, orthe languageofthe permits modified appropriately: 1. All dischargesfrom vessels covered bythese permits will be conducted in a manner so as notto violate Georgia'swaterqualitystandards. 2. Except for ocean going vessels of 20 tons displacement or more, the discharge of graywater shall be through a marine sanitation device that is in compliance with the Federal standards of performance and regulations for marine sanitation devices promulgated pursuant to Section 312 ofthe Clean WaterAct. Georgia DNR or EPD personnel, or other duly authorized agents, shall have access to any vessel at reasonable times for the purposes of determining compliance with these rules. Georgia RulesforWaterQualityControl, 391-3-6-.04. This certification does not relieve vessel operators ofany obligation or responsibility for complying with the provisions of any other laws or regulations of other federal, state or local authorities, nordoes it obviate the necessityofobtaining anyother permits orapprovals as may be required by law. Finally, EPA currently provides information regarding nutrient and copper impairment listings to permit holders via their website, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/ permitresources.cfm. This information is out of date, and does not reflect Georgia's latest approved 303(d) listings. These listings are available on Georgia EPD's website at http://qeorqiaepd.org/Documents/305b.html. We ask that EPA provide this updated information as a resource to all VGP/sVGP permittees. Should you have anyquestions, please contact Gigi Steele at (404) 675-6000.

Judson H. Turner Director
No. 68156.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/12306 (San Erancisco).

Opinion by

Eord, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Hibaehis similar in all material respects to the Mini Bachis the subject of Abstract 67238, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.