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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0013 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-043-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.

 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: Mark Wiley Date

Branch Manager Date
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.56 N 76.20 WMeters AGL
No. 55252.

#### American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 118071-K/398, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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



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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter  Ended  August 31, 2007 (the  "Report") by
Advanced Media Training, Inc.  ("Registrant"),  the undersigned hereby certifies
that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.




October 16, 2007                          By:  /S/ ROBERT STEVENS
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Robert Stevens
                                               Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                               Financial Officer
No. 58542.

protests 227200-K (B), 227200-K (C), and 229334-K (B) (New York).

#### Garay & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the protests were dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 6, 2013

No. 04-13-00626-CR

Robert HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9923

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED on November 6, 2013.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of November, 2013.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION

OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



|                                          |  |          
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------
|                                          |  | SHARES   
|Basic Shares outstanding at June 30, 2006 |  | 1,827,620
|                                          |  |          



|                         |  |  |  |            |  |   |  |                 
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------- |  | - |  | ----------------
|Net income after tax     |  |  |  | $1,163,452 |  | = |  | $ 0.64 per share
|Basic Shares outstanding |  |  |  | 1,827,620  |  |   |  |                 



|                                            |  |          
|------------------------------------------- |  | ---------
|Diluted Shares outstanding at June 30, 2006 |  | 1,851,355
|                                            |  |          



|                           |  |  |  |            |  |   |  |                 
|-------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------- |  | - |  | ----------------
|Net income after tax       |  |  |  | $1,163,452 |  | = |  | $ 0.63 per share
|Diluted Shares outstanding |  |  |  | 1,851,355  |  |   |  |                 

Note: Basic earnings per share are computed as earnings divided by weighted average basic shares outstanding.
Diluted Shares outstanding includes the difference between 37,501 stock options outstanding less 13,766 shares that could be purchased using the option exercise proceeds should all stock options be exercised. When a loss occurs, Diluted (loss) per
share and Basic (loss) per share are the same.



40
June 20, 1940

No. 44023.

#### Protest 935234-G of Hartley Stock Farm.

C. D. 333. Application by Government for rehearing denied.
Before the First Division,

November 19, 1957

No. 61358.

protests 245242-K (A) and 245242-K (B) (New York).

#### Hershey Co. *v.*United States,

*498Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items in question are not in chief value of galalith but that they are in chief value of steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
**Exhibit
      32.2**


CERTIFICATION
      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 Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended  December
      31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the SecuritiesExchange
                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.





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.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      and
      is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      of
      the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
      general incorporation language in such filing.





Date:
                April 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Samuel
                ShengSamuel
                Sheng
              Chief
                Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting
                officer)
J-S22006-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CREA EXCAVATING, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSEPH A. PIOLE

Appellant No. 644 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 4, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No(s): GD-11-010572

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED June 1, 2015

Appellant, Joseph A. Piole, appeals pro se from the judgment entered 

in favor of Appellee, Crea Excavating, Inc., on April 4, 2014, in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We dismiss the appeal. 

The pro se brief Appellant has submitted to this Court substantially 

fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s 

Brief does not include: (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) statements of the 

scope and standard of review; (3) a statement of the questions involved; 

and (4) a copy of the Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). 

Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s 35-page appellate 

brief contains only a single citation to supporting case law, without 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S22006-15

- 2 -

elaboration or analysis. See Appellant’s Brief at 18. Correspondingly, there 

is no developed legal argument in the entirety of Appellant’s brief. “The 

Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an 

appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent 

authority.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

Furthermore, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, 

when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] 

a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust 

v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-943 (Pa. Super. 2006).

“While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro 

se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage 

because she lacks legal training. As our supreme court has explained, any 

layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some 

reasonable extent, assume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal 

training will prove her undoing.” Gesiorski, 904 A.2d at 942 (citation 

omitted). In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s brief 

cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal 

due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant's brief, which hampered 

our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J-S22006-15

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/1/2015
(Reap. Dec. 8687)

Entry No. 912099.

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 17, 1956)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, 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 the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above mentioned appeal for reappraisement consists of Xylene East Yellow P which was appraised as being 160 per cent the tinctorial strength of DuPont Milling Yellow *5426G Concentrated on an American selling price, as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 at $3.71 per pound, net weight.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the said Xylene Fast Yellow P is only 140 per cent the tinctorial strength of said DuPont Milling Yellow 5G Concentrated and that the correct American selling price for said Xylene Fast Yellow P, as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is $3.25 per pound, net weight.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for reap-praisement is abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoice, and that this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the xylene fast yellow P here involved, and that such value was $3.25 per pound, net weight.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 21

                         JEFFERSON-PILOT CORPORATION

As of December 31, 1997

Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

   Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company of America (Michigan corp.)
        AH (Michigan) Life Insurance Company (Michigan corp.)
        First Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company (New York corp.)

   Chubb Life Insurance Company of America (New Hampshire corp.)
     (name being changed effective May 1, 1998 to Jefferson Pilot
     Financial Insurance Company)
        Chubb Colonial Life Insurance Company (New Jersey corp.)
          (name being changed effective May 1, 1998 to Jefferson Pilot
          LifeAmerica Insurance Company)
        Chubb Sovereign Life Insurance Company (New Hampshire corp.)
        Chubb America Service Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)

   GARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)
        HARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)
             Omega Jefferson Pilot Seguros de Vida S.A. (Argentina corp.)(2)
             Jefferson Pilot Omega Seguros de Vida S.A. (Uruguay corp.)

   Hampshire Funding Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

   JP Investment Management Company (North Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust A (Delaware business trust)

   Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust B (Delaware business trust)

   Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company (North Carolina corp.)
        Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of California (North
          Carolina corp.)
        San Diego Broadcasting Corporation (California corp.)
        Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Virginia
          (Virginia corp.)
        Jefferson-Pilot Sports, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)
        WCSC, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)
             Tall Tower, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson-Pilot Health Care Delivery Systems, Inc. (North Carolina
     corp.)
        Community Choice of North Carolina, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson Pilot Investment Advisory Corporation (Tennessee corp.)

   Jefferson-Pilot Investments, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson Pilot Variable Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)
        Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson-Pilot Property Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

   Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)

___________

Notes:

(1) Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.  All entities
    more than 50% owned are listed.
(2) The immediate parent owns 100% of the voting securities of each
    entity except that HARCO owns 70% of Omega.
(3) Several subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have
    been omitted.
No. 50471.

#### Protests 63973-K. etc., of Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein, the protests were sustained as claimed.
### Please do not hesitate to contact me should you 

## have any questions. Sin,cerelY, ~ 

# ."" / / 

# /1 Pierre M phy I Attome 

### for

, Lineas Aereas Suramericanas, S.A. ;' 

### I attach herewith for filing an original executed Form OST F 1010.5 Designation of Agent for Lineas Aereas Suramericanas ("LAS"). Dear Sir/Madame: Re: Lineas Aereas Suramericanas, S.A. Designation of Agent: Docket OST -Q2-12556 Attn: Chief Documentary Services Division Docket OST-02-12556 u.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 

## VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION January 13,2014 EMAIL:PMURPHY@LOPMURPHY.COM TELEPHONE:(202) 776-3980 TELECOPIER:(202) 776-3975 SUITE 800 1200 NEWHAMPSHIREAVENUE, N
. W. WASHINGTON,D.C. 20036-6802 

## PIERRE MURPHY

LAW OFFICES." ( . .

## - . . ~
• - , ' , . !!,! ' " . ! !':. ~ . :

_ . __ ~

_ '!' :.. .. __. ' , .••••. ! 't_ ' . .. l~

__ .'\..:" : .. . .. : .. " . ~- ~ •• :. -:; . •

__ ", :' . : ~ •• . • - . . • . •

_ •••• _, - ._' • . ~ ."!' . ~

_ r OST , 111D.1(1-t1) 

### lllis

ATJ'EST: 

### icanas, S .A. By: 

### of said 

### company. and 10 be 

### aaated under its 

### corpora. seal by 

# L€oO~c> AL~l2 

# vltell .. 

# t1I.(.(M~, 0f!t \ H q 

# I(48='" secretary. or ocher Title) on lIIiI () ~ cloy of 

# Jad-Ih..rtJ' . M 

## -zot~ . • Preside.. preseMllO be 'ipeel 

### ia ill 

### name by 

### luis Enrique 

### Prieto 

# GirS!'t. CfX) (Plcue Pr ) 

### ,_ caused thac IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 

### Lineas Aereas SUri!lnericanas, 

# is .A. (Nlme or 

# c..... ) . 

# ____ 1R__

# ,~_~_.~~e~_~

~_PH~7~..._ ~(uawl) __ 

## ~I:,-f1~e==-- __ ,Name AcIdreu 

### 1 . 200 New Himpshi.re Avenue, . NW, SUite 590'1 

# washi.n:]ton, OC 20036 The Aftlllso dcsi........... wriacn his aunc and 1110 his initials in die 

### ~owinllJ*e: NameofAptd Pierre 

### ltnphy. Law 

### Offices of Pierxj Mgphy (Plcue Print) : (Adclrcu) hereby detiilnauel. 

### punuanc 10 

### r.cction .a610) 

### of nile .19 01 the.U .S. Code 'fO= ' )' 

### section 100" b, 0( lhe FcdmI A, · illm Acl 

### of 1"8. a". 

### umendcd, the pmiOII named ~k.,, · 

### as iCti A,.". 

### upon ,,'hom lIm'icc IIIOIices and pIO&."eS.,. and all CII'Ik.-n... d«ision~. and 

### mluiremcnti of the 

### Dcpartmcal ofTraMpOI1alion 

### may be made 

### for and on aU 

### of ~id 

### carrier. hmb)' 

### cilllCClin. all 

### ~:iau~ dnilllDli0n5 

### of AfClUs made by it 10 die DOT. i



### Avenida El Dorado N. 103-22, Entrada 2 In~ior 7, Bogo~, Co1anbia office .. (Name of 

### Company. please prine) • havin. ir, principal 

### ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION. C-55 LINEM AEREAS SURAMERICANAS, S .A. Chicf. 

### nocumentary Services Div. Depuunenr of Transporwion Wuhiillton. D.C. 20590 

### DESIGNATION OF AGENT 

# lOR SERVICE OF NOTICE. PROCESS. ORDERS DECISIONS 

### AND REQUIItEM . NTS 

### u.s.PI, ........... OtraOl ~vOl iO'IlD'T:I"O'I 

# o
No. 58999.

protests 236204-K, etc. (New York).

#### Lekas & Drivas, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Pecorino, Feta (sheep’s milk) cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Lekas & Drivas, Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 242, C. D. 1660), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10711)

#### T.A.P. Equipment Co., dba Thrifty Equipment Co. James G. Wiley et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4148, etc.

(Decided April 7, 1964)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*and *Glad & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement listed on schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> *492IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto .attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise entered or withdrawn from Customs warehouse for consumption before the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and shown on the invoices as having been .shipped by The Tractor Parts & Equipment Co.

> 2. That the said merchandise consists of tractor parts exported from Italy .and the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Thrifty Equipment Co., T. D. Downing Co.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 10466, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which .such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Italy, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course -of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of 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, were the invoiced unit values, plus 25% net packed; and that the foreign value was no higher.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, are ■.submitted 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 here involved and that such values were the invoiced unit values, plus 25 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1530 DFL GGH P

vs.

R. LEE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 January 5, 2006, 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. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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-01530-JAM-GGH Document 41 Filed 03/29/06 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 January 5, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s March 3, 2005 motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

DATED: 3/28/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01530-JAM-GGH Document 41 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2