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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0207 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-071-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: Date

Branch Manager 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

-1-

JILL P. TELFER (State Bar No. 145450)

LAW OFFICES OF JILL P. TELFER

A Professional Corporation

331 J. Street, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 446-1916

Facsimile: (916) 446-1726

email: jilltelfer@yahoo.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

MICHAEL ASBERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO/SANITATION

DEPARTMENT, 

 Defendants.

 

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

NO. CIV. S-01-2343 LKK PAN 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS ACTION

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.

 Defendants.

 

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK PAN 

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 98 Filed 06/21/06 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

Stipulation to Dismiss -2-

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff MICHAEL

ASBERRY and Defendant THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, by and through their respective

counsel, that Plaintiff hereby dismisses all of his claims, with prejudice, against the THE CITY

OF SACRAMENTO. The parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys fees.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

LAW OFFICES OF JILL P. TELFER

/s/Jill P. Telfer

DATED: June 19, 2006 _____________________________

JILL P. TELFER

Attorney for Plaintiff 

MICHAEL ASBERRY

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO

/s/Angela M. Casagranda

DATED: June 19, 2006 _____________________________

Angela M. Casagranda, 

Deputy City Attorney

for Defendant,

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO

/s/David S. Womack

DATED: June 19, 2006 _____________________________

David S. Womack, Deputy City Attorney

for Defendant, 

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: June 20, 2006 ____________________________

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

Senior Judge

U.S. District Court

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 98 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8235)

#### Wm. Shaland *v.*United States

Entry No. 711490, etc.

(Decided June 26, 1953)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisements enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *William Shaland,*A. R. D. 12, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> ' IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the cases enumerated above is equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise here involved, and tbat such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1 - Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 amended Quarterly Report of Neighborhood Connections,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report").  I, Ruth Selmon, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, 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
and belief:

               (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 the Company.


/s/ Ruth Selmon
---------------------------
    Ruth Selmon
    Chief Executive Officer
    Chief Financial Officer

Date  August 17, 2005
      ---------------

<PAGE>
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

ALONZO McKINNEY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1678 LKK GGH P

vs.

DAVID ORTIZ, 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 24, 2005, petitioner filed a request for the

appointment of counsel or an investigator. In support of his request, petitioner states that he is

taking psychotropic medication.

On February 18, 2005, respondent filed an opposition to petitioner’s request. 

Attached to respondent’s opposition is the declaration of Dr. Bindler, the Senior Psychologist

Supervisor at California State Prison-Corcoran, where petitioner is incarcerated. In his

declaration, Dr. Bindler states that during the last 12 months petitioner has not been prescribed

any psychotropic medication. 

On March 29, 2005, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file a

reply to Dr. Bindler’s declaration. Petitioner states that he receives psychotropic medication

Case 2:04-cv-01678-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 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

seven days a week. Taped to petitioner’s pleading is a pill that petitioner represents he takes for

depression and abnormal sleep.

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.

§ 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. In reaching this conclusion, the court need not determine whether petitioner is, in fact,

taking psychotropic medication. 

The court also finds that appointment of an investigator is not warranted at this

time, regardless of whether or not petitioner is taking psychotropic medication. Petitioner is

informed he should not tape objects to his future pleadings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 29, 2005, request for extension of time to file a reply is

denied as unnecessary;

2. Petitioner’s January 24, 2005, motion for appointment of counsel and an

investigator is denied.

DATED: 4/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

mck1678.den

Case 2:04-cv-01678-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Robert L. Schulz et al., Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 644]

—Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered October 14, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition / complaint as moot.

Petitioners commenced this matter seeking, *inter alia,*a declaration that the failure of the State Legislature to pass the State budget for the fiscal year 1994-1995 (hereinafter the budget) by the April 1, 1994 deadline constituted a violation of the State Constitution. Supreme Court dismissed the matter, *754basing its determination upon the fact that the State budget for the 1994-1995 fiscal year had been passed on June 7, 1994, rendering petitioners’ case moot.

We disagree. As this Court recently held in *Matter of Schulz v Silver*(212 AD2d 293), a case wherein a similar challenge was made regarding the Legislature’s failure to pass the State budget for the fiscal year 1995-1996, this matter embodies the elements necessary to qualify as an exception to the mootness doctrine. Nonetheless, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contentions regarding the merits of this case. Because the same issues were raised by petitioner and rejected by this Court in *Matter of Schulz v Silver (supra),*we affirm for the reasons set forth therein.

Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
No. 50484.

#### Protest 95462-K of Phillips Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial illustrative samples of the merchandise together with other exhibits were introduced in evidence. The assistant United States appraiser, who had examined this shipment, testified that he advisorily classified the commodity as waste but that upon instructions from the Bureau of Customs recommended free entry as a crude metallic mineral susbtance. The chief chemist of the customs laboratorjr at New York testified that the commodity is a crude metallic mineral substance and that it contains metal as such. The court held that from the evidence it is clear that this commodity contained metal as such. *(Alpha Lux Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*27 C. C. P. A. 162, C. A. D. 79, cited.) 'It was held that the term “crude” as used in tariff legislation is a relative term, its meaning depending on its use in the context. *(Fynaut & Popek*v. *United States,*23 id. 265, T. D. 48112, *United States*v. *Nichols Copper Co.,*29 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 190, and *United States*v. *United States Rubber Co.,*30 id. 174, C. A. D. 269, cited.) Upon the record before us and following the authorities cited it was held that the instant commodity falls within the purview of paragraph 1664 and is entitled to free entry thereunder as a metallic mineral substance in a crude state.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Shay Ben-Asulin,
Chairman of the Board and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

      (1) the Report fully comply 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 the
Company.


Shay Ben-Asulin
-------------------------
Shay Ben-Asulin, Chairman

Dated: May 20, 2005
1845-0058 – Affected Public – State, Local or Tribal Governments 8/27/2014

This request is for the extension of a current paperwork collection in the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1845-0085 for the reporting requirement contained in the 

regulations for States, not-for-profit lenders and eligible lender trustees under 34 CFR 682.302

for the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. Section 682.302 contains information 

collection requirements. The information collection requirements are necessary to determine or 

recertify eligibility to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds. 

The regulations in §682.302 require a State, non-profit entity, or eligible lender trustee to provide 

to the Secretary a certification on the State or non-profit entity’s letterhead signed by the State or 

non-profit’s Chief Executive Officer which states the basis upon which the entity qualifies as a 

State or non-profit entity. The submission must include documentation establishing the entity’s 

State or non-profit status. In addition, the submission must include the name and lender 

identification number for which the eligible not-for-profit designation is being certified. 

Once an entity has been approved as an eligible not-for-profit holder, the entity must provide to 

the Secretary an annual certification on the State or non-profit entity’s letterhead signed by the 

CEO, which includes the name and lender identification number(s) of the entities for which 

designation is being recertified. The annual certification must state that the State or non-profit 

entity has not altered its status as a State or non-profit entity since its prior certification to the 

Secretary and that it continues to satisfy the requirements of an eligible not-for-profit holder 

either in its own right or through a trust agreement with an eligible lender trustee. 

When an approved not-for-profit holder has a change in status, within 10 days of becoming 

aware of the occurrence of a change that may result in a State or non-profit entity that has been 

designated an eligible not-for-profit holder, either directly or through an eligible lender trustee, 

losing that eligibility, the State or non-profit entity must submit details of the change to the 

Secretary.

Based on applications filed for 2014 there is one less State entity who submitted the required 

documentation. 

Recalculated amount of burden for State entities:

States submitting documentation 24

Average time to complete the submission 1.0 hour

Total time to complete the submissions 24 hours
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1

       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          691,916
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,609,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,822,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,447,386
<PP&E>                                          2,921,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,724,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,199,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           727,175
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        242,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,229,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,199,566
<SALES>                                         9,402,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                9,402,005
<CGS>                                           8,795,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   8,795,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 675,910
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (295,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    970,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   2.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.00
        


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0162 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0162

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 April 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism (COM(2006)0401 - C6-0253/2006 - 2006/0140(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0749 - 0749 *

P6_TA(2007)0162

Rapid Border Intervention Teams ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 April 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism (COM(2006)0401 — C6-0253/2006 — 2006/0140(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0401) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 62(2)(a) and 66 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0253/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0135/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Approves the annexed declaration;

3. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Lajos Laufer, Appellant. Columbus W. 82 Apartments Corp. et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 512]

—In a proceeding to set aside an election of directors of a cooperative apartment building, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated July 5, 1994, which denied the petition and granted that branch of the respondent’s cross motion which was to confirm the results of the election.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that even if the petitioner had been permitted to vote all of the shares he allegedly was entitled to vote, the result would have been the same. Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion under Business Corporation Law § 619 in denying the petition to set aside the election. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Case No. 6,717.

#### HOTCHKISS v. GLASGOW et al.

[5 McLean, 424.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Ohio.

April Term, 1853.

Deed — Jurisdiction—Evidence—Certified Copt.

1. A deed, fair upon its face, is not objectionable, as a colorable conveyance to give jurisdiction, unless proof be shown aliunde.

2. A certified copy of a deed, not authenticated by the seal of the recorder, is not admissible in evidence.

[This was a bill in equity by the lessee of H. O. Hotchkiss against Glasgow and others.]

Mr. Taft, for plaintiff.

OPINION OP THE COURT. To sustain-the title a deed was offered for the premises from Nathaniel Sawyer to Hotchkiss, which was objected to, as the conveyance was only colorable, to give jurisdiction to the court. Hotchkiss is the son-in-law of Sawyer. The consideration named in the deed is the sum of ten dollars. THE COURT held the deed was good upon its face, as between the parties. In his correspondence with the counsel (Mr. Taft), Mr. Hotchkiss claimed the land as his own. A patent was then offered, to John Lee and Rebecca Greenwood. A deed was then offered • from the heirs of Lee to Nathaniel Sawyer, and proof was given that the grantors were the heirs of Lee. A patent to Sawyer and Baylor was then read in evidence. A proceeding was then read in chancery, decreeing the title of Baylor’s heirs to Sawyer. A deed, dated 18th June, 1S39, was then read from Rebecca Greenwood to N. Sawyer. • The copy of the original deed from R. Greenwood was offered, certified by the recorder, but not authenticated by the seal of that officer. THE COURT held that the copy was not authenticated as the statute required, and a nonsuit was, consequently, suffered. A motion to set aside the nonsuit was submitted, but THE COURT overruled the motion.
No. 52977.

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 120586-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.