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

### FAA - 201 1 - 00 8 8 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - CE - 0 7 2 - AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

– If this box is checked, no s ignatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list 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 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 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 fol lowing 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: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

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

**Branch Manager Date**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7609
In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Duke Shelton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), seeking to invalidate his 1988 Virginia conviction for petty larceny. To the extent that Shelton seeks review of a Virginia trial court’s denial of his state petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we do not possess jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court. See Sinclair v. Louisiana , 679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny Shelton’s petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM P. McCABE, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 47, 37 CMR 311

No. 19,722

May 19, 1967

*Stephen Wise Tulin, Esquire, Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major David J. Passamaneck,*and *Captain Raymond A. DiLuglio*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper, Captain Joel P. Schiff,*and *Captain Anthony L. Tersigni*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Initially, we denied the accused’s petition for grant of review, but later granted his application for reconsideration because the record of trial presented an issue as to which we had granted review in United States v Simpson, 17 USCMA 44, 37 CMR 308. For the reasons set out in the *Simpson*case, we affirm the decision of the board of review.
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

CHRISTOPHER WACHNIUK, No. CIV-S-04-1623 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GAIL LEWIS, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On July 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01623-MCE -PAN Document 19 Filed 08/18/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2005,

are adopted in full; and 

2. Respondent’s November 19, 2004, motion to dismiss is

granted and this action is dismissed as untimely.

DATE: August 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01623-MCE -PAN Document 19 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT 21


                          Subsidiaries of the Company


   As of March 24, 2000, the Company owned or controlled the following
percentages of the capital stock of the corporations listed below:


                                       State or Country of
   Name of Corporation                    Incorporation     % Owned
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                    <C>                  <C>
Kollmorgen Overseas Development
    Corporation                        Delaware             100

Proto-Power Corporation                Delaware             100

Kollmorgen Tandon (India)              India                100

Tianjin Kollmorgen Industrial          Peoples' Republic
    Drives Corporation                 of China              83

Artus Group                            France               100
        Kollmorgen Artus
        Societe Anonyme Cryla

Kollmorgen Seidel Servo Drives GmbH    Germany              100

Kollmorgen Servotronix, Ltd.           Israel               100

Kollmorgen Magnedyne Corporation       Delaware             100

Calzoni S.p.A.                         Italy                100

SEMCOM, a.s.                           Czech Republic       100
        SMB s.r.o                      Czech Republic       100
        SMB GmbH                       Germany              100

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences (NUREG-0090)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 02, 2024
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

JEFFREY MARSHALL, No. CIV S-04-1841-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

FAIRFIELD POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with leave to amend. The court’s April 13, 2005, order directed plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within 30 days. Since that order was issued, plaintiff has filed two notices of change of

address. The record reflects that the court’s April 13, 2005, order was re-served after the court

received the first notice of change of address. The record, however, does not reflect re-service

after plaintiff filed the second notice of change of address. In the interest of justice, the court will

re-serve its prior order and allow plaintiff an additional opportunity to file an amended complaint

Case 2:04-cv-01841-LKK -CMK Document 23 Filed 09/28/05 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

as directed.

Next, on July 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of findings and

recommendations, and on August 8, 2005, August 12, 2005, and September 7, 2005, plaintiff filed

documents purporting to be objections to findings and recommendations. Because no findings

and recommendations have been issued to date in this case, these filings (Docs. 15, 17, 18, and

21) will be disregarded. 

Finally, on August 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for additional time to conduct

discovery (Doc. 19), and on September 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a request that the court direct

service of his complaint (Doc. 22). Plaintiff is advised that, until he files an amended complaint

and the court conducts an initial review as required by law, the court cannot direct service or open

discovery. Therefore, these requests will be denied without prejudice to renewal, if necessary, at

an appropriate stage in the proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s documents filed July 29, 2005 (Doc. 15), August 8, 2005 (Doc.

17), August 12, 2005 (Doc. 18), and September 7, 2005 (Doc. 21), are disregarded;

2. Plaintiff’s requests filed August 15, 2005 (Doc. 19), and September 21,

2005 (Doc. 22), are denied without prejudice; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve the court’s April 13, 2005,

orders on plaintiff at his current address of record; and

4. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file and

serve an amended complaint as directed by the court’s April 13, 2005, order.

DATED: September 26, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01841-LKK -CMK Document 23 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1932 LKK GGH PS

vs.

HOME DEPOT, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this action, requested on December 2, 2005, an

extension of time to file an second amended complaint. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

petitioner is granted until January 20, 2005, to file an amended complaint. No further requests

for extension of time will be considered.

DATED: 1/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kr

Marshall1932.eot3

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 36 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 64874.

#### Arista Oil Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/30828 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise was not derived from linseed oil, but that it was distilled from sperm whale oil, it was held that the merchandise is not subject to the tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
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

LEWIS JENKINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1656 FCD GGH P

vs.

STEVE CAMBRA, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has timely filed a notice of

appeal of this court's April 24, 2006, denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues

satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

Case 2:04-cv-01656-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 05/11/06 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

1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issues presented in the instant petition: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel; 2)

sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED:May 11, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01656-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0                  14,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  48,188
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                 145,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 216,469
<PP&E>                                               0                  41,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  24,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 278,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  46,054
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   6,645
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 278,570
<SALES>                                        169,930                 463,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,930                 407,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    34                     549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51                     151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,096                  57,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,073                  24,875
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,023                  32,971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18                     .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18                     .49


</TABLE>
No. R68/4.

reappraisements 284577-A, etc. (Boston).

#### Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those in *United States*v. *Philipp Bros. Chemicals, Inc.*(56 Cust. Ct. 816, A.R.D. 208), the court found and held that United States value, as that value is defined in section 402(e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sodium peroxide involved and that such value was $0.129245 per pound, net packed.
Order filed October 2 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 14 - 00574 - CV NO. 14 - 14 - 00655 - CV NO. 14 - 14 - 00772 - CV

____________ CHRISTINE REULE , Appellant

V. JOHN R. BELUS , Appellee On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harri s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014 - 37325



### ORDER On July 15, 2014, appellant filed a notice of accelerated appeal from the trial court’s temporary injunction signed July 7, 2014, and the appeal was docketed under our case number 14

- 14

- 00574

- CV. On August 11, 2014, appellant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the amended temporary injunction signed July 24, 2014, and a new appeal was docketed under our case number 14

- 14

- 00655

- CV.On August 13, 2014, appellant filed a motion to consolidate t he appeals. No

opposition was filed. Accordingly, we granted the motion and ordered the appeals consolidated. On September 23, 2014, appellant filed a notice of accelerated appeal from the trial court’s second amended temporary injunction signed September 18, 2014. On September 25, 2014, appellant filed a motion to review the second amended temporary injunction. We grant the motion. On our own motion, we order this new appeal docketed under 14

- 14

- 00772

- CV CONSOLIDATED with t he previously consolidated appeal s docketed under case number 14

- 14

- 00574

- CV and 14

- 14

- 00655

- CV . All documents pertaining to these cases should be filed in case number 14

- 14

- 00574

- CV. The same clerk’s record, reporter’s record, and briefs will apply to all three cases. The filing deadlin es in case number 14

- 1 4

- 00 574

- CV will apply to all three cases.
PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.1



KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Stern, Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: September 24, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern   
|                         |  |  |  | Michael D. Stern       
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



39
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

RICHARD E. WILMSHURST,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0988 DFL KJM PS

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On August 2, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Objections

to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 86 Filed 02/10/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 2, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted;

3. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any pendent state claims; and

4. This action is dismissed. 

DATED: 2/8/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 86 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10048)

#### First American Natural Ferns Co. J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 751644, etc.

(Decided July 14, 1961)

*Siegel, Mandell é Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*William, E. Orrioh, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties herein.:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise embraced in the invoices covered, by the entries the subject of the appeals to reappraisement noted on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof, at the time of exportation to the United States, 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 export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the entered value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign or domestic value for merchandise such as or similar to the merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals to re-appraisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 merchandise herein involved and that such values are represented by the entered value in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2022 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"&K000000Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&K000000September 2022