alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-0415 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-001-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. 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 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: 

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, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
No. 50426.

#### Protest 99417-K of Olive Read Creations (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial plaintiff’s witness testified that he had personally ordered the pig banks and pig boxes and had visited the Indians who make them; that they use the ordinary adobe mud dug out of their yards, mix it with water, and put it on a half-shaped hard adobe mold, thereafter removing it from the mold to dry in the sun; and that the articles are gray or light tan in color because of the color of the adobe mud or clay, being unwashed, unmixed, and not artificially colored. From the testimony it was held that the merchandise in question is properly dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 210, as claimed.
**EXHIBIT 23(b)****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 33-22435 and 33-50816), on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-71298, 333-7798, 333-13714, 333-98601 and333-125955), on Form F-8 (No. 333-129218) and on Form F-10 (Nos. 333-13470, 333-12588, 333-104688and 333-104687) of Inco Limited of our report dated February 28, 2006 relating to the financialstatements, the financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to usunder the heading “Experts” in each such Registration Statement on Form S-3 and Form F-10.PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
No. 46691.

#### Protests 980103-G, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained to that extent.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2023 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"VII CER - &P	&"Arial,Bold"September 2022
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.4 (d)


                            AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE
                                    to the
                    SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
                                      for
                            MALLINCKRODT GROUP INC.


     The Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Mallinckrodt Group Inc. (the
"Plan"), is hereby amended, effective as of June 15, 2000, as set forth below.

     Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective
meanings set forth in the Plan.

     1.   Section 6.11.
          ------------

     (a)  The definition of "Good Reason" set forth in Section 6.11(a)(ii) of
the Plan is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof which currently reads
"The Participant must notify the Company of an event constituting Good Reason
within ninety (90) days following his knowledge of its existence or such event
shall not constitute Good Reason under the Plan."

     (b)  The definition of "Cause" set forth in Section 6.11(a)(iii) of the
Plan is amended to include the phrase "which remains uncured for a period of ten
(10) days" immediately following the parenthetical "(other than any failure due
to physical or mental incapacity)".

     2.   The validity, interpretation, and enforcement of this amendment shall
be governed by the law of the State of New York.  The invalidity or
unenforceabililty of any provision of this amendment shall not affect the
validity or enforceabililty of any other provision of this amendment or of the
Plan, as amended hereby, which other provisions shall remain in full force and
effect.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALLEN EDWARD STEWART,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CR-01-144-ALL; CA-03-1204-AM)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Edward Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Allan Edward Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Stewart cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability

will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A § 2255

movant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

326 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001. We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude Stewart has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|                                       |                                                                                                                 |                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: October 16,                2006 | By:                                                                                                        | */s/              John B.              Gallagher*    |
|                                       | Name: John                B. GallagherTitle:                   Co-Chief Executive                  Officer |

|                                       |                                                                                                                |                                                               |
|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                                                                                                |                                                               |
| Date: October 16,                2006 | By:                                                                                                       | */s/              Harry D.              Shields*    |
|                                       | Name: Harry                D. ShieldsTitle:                   Co-Chief Executive                  Officer |

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: May 6, 2004 |  | /s/ GEORGE F. HORNER III                                     
|                  |  | George F. Horner III                                         
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                        
|                  | 
|Date: May 6, 2004 |  | /s/ DOV A. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.                                   
|                  |  | Dov A. Goldstein, M.D.                                       
|                  |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANH KOUIYOTH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0662 MCE JFM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed January 6, 2005, this action was

stayed pending disposition of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner in the

California Supreme Court on October 18, 2004 and petitioner was directed to file a request to lift

the stay within thirty days from the date he is notified of disposition of his state habeas corpus

petition. On September 28, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition,

a proposed amended petition, and a motion for appointment of counsel.

Good cause appearing, the stay of this action will be lifted and respondent will be

directed to file a response to petitioner’s motion to amend.

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.

Case 2:04-cv-00662-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 10/12/05 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

2

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stay of this action is lifted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this action;

3. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order respondent shall file and

serve a response to petitioner’s September 28, 2005 motion to amend; 

4. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served not later than ten days

thereafter; and

5. Petitioner’s September 28, 2005 motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: October 12, 2005.

12

koui0662.lft

Case 2:04-cv-00662-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 02, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 02, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0510. LORI INGRAM v. SPENCER R. MOORE, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA 

DEPARTMENT OF DRIVER SERVICES et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

19CV0477
# The Health Consequences of Smoking

Chapter 1. Introduction and Approach to Causal Inference 1

Introduction 3

Smoking: Issues in Statistical and Causal Inference 10

Major Conclusions 25

Chapter Conclusions 25

References 31

Chapter 2. Cancer 35

Introduction 39

Lung Cancer 42

Laryngeal Cancer 62

Oral Cavity and Pharyngeal Cancers 63

Esophageal Cancer 116

Pancreatic Cancer 136

Bladder and Kidney Cancers 166

Cervical Cancer 167

Ovarian Cancer 171

Endometrial Cancer 172

Stomach Cancer 178

Colorectal Cancer 208

Prostate Cancer 250

Acute Leukemia 252

Liver Cancer 296

Adult Brain Cancer 302

Breast Cancer 303

Summary 324

Conclusions 324

References 326

Chapter 3. Cardiovascular Diseases 361

Introduction 363

Conclusions of Previous Surgeon General’s Reports 363

Biologic Basis 364

Smoking and Subclinical Atherosclerosis 371

Smoking, Coronary Heart Disease, and Sudden Death 384

Smoking and Cerebrovascular Disease 393

Smoking and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm 396

Summary 397

Conclusions 407

References 408

Chapter 4. Respiratory Diseases 421

Introduction 423

Acute Respiratory Illnesses 423

Chronic Respiratory Diseases 463

xiii2 Table of Contents Surgeon General’s Report

Conclusions 508

References 510

Chapter 5. Reproductive Effects 525

Introduction 527

Conclusions of Previous Surgeon General’s Reports 527

Biologic Basis 532

Fertility 533

Pregnancy and Pregnancy Outcomes 550

Congenital Malformations, Infant Mortality, and Child Physical and Cognitive Development 577

Conclusions 601

References 602

Chapter 6. Other Effects 611

Introduction 615

Diminished Health Status 615

Loss of Bone Mass and the Risk of Fractures 698

Dental Diseases 732

Erectile Dysfunction 767

Eye Diseases 777

Peptic Ulcer Disease 804

Conclusions 818

References 820

Chapter 7. The Impact of Smoking on Disease and the Benefits of Smoking Reduction 853

Overview 855

Introduction 855

Current Impact of Smoking 858

Health Benefits of Reducing Cigarette Smoking 871

Conclusions 876

Implications 877

Appendix 7-1: Estimating the Disease Impact of Smoking in the United States 878

References 888

Chapter 8. A Vision for the Future 895

Introduction 897

Tremendous Progress Since 1964 897

The Need for a Sustained Effort 898

The Need for a Comprehensive Approach 899

Continuing to Build the Scientific Foundation 899

Tobacco Control in the New Millennium 901

References 902

Appendix 905

Abbreviations 911

List of Tables and Figures 915

Index 921

xiv
MINUTE ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 RICHARD DENNIS GAMACHE v. BRETT WILLIAMS, et al. 

THE HONORABLE RALPH R. BEISTLINE

CAREER LAW CLERK CASE NO. 2:04-CV-00859-RRB-PAN 

 John W. Erickson, Jr. DATE: July 5, 2006

PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

 

Having thoroughly reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s wellarticulated Findings & Recommendations (Docket No. 58) filed on

June 14, 2006, as well as Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 59) filed on

June 23, 2006, Plaintiff is hereby noticed that he shall have until

Friday, August 4, 2006, to file a third amended complaint. Should

Plaintiff fail to do the same, this matter will be dismissed, in

its entirety, with prejudice.

The Court further notes that Plaintiff's Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 39) was DENIED on February 28,

2006. See Clerk's Docket No. 49. Consequently, Plaintiff's

renewed Request for Appointment of Counsel at Docket No. 59 is

hereby DENIED as moot.

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN Document 60 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.01


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of CSK Auto
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending
August 3, 2003 (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d -14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code.

Maynard L. Jenkins, the Chief Executive Officer
and Don W. Watson, the Chief Financial Officer of CSK Auto
Corporation, each certifies that to the best of their knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1)     The Report fully
    complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                           
|
| | (2)     The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
    CSK Auto Corporation.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ MAYNARD L. JENKINS 
| |                        
| | Maynard L. Jenkins     
| | Chief Executive Officer

September 16, 2003



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ DON W. WATSON      
| |                        
| | Don W. Watson          
| | Chief Financial Officer

September 16, 2003
(Reap. Dec. 8166)

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3510.

(Decided September 24, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Pale y (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the above named Appeal to Re-appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.