Based upon the Delegation Doctrine (any statute conferring excessive legislative power is invalid because it is unconstitutional to delegate powers), did the US Supreme Court struck down the following statutes in (Write Yes or No and Why):

1. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)-the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) included a provision prohibiting interstate shipment of petroleum in excess of certain quotas. The President was given the power to ensure that the provision was followed.
2. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) - under the NIRA, poultry producers was empowered by the National Recovery Administration to regulate competition in the poultry industry. Thus, trade associations were allowed to enforce rules governing the sale and transport of poultry. A company found guilty of shipping diseased chickens, in violation of these rules, challenged the enforcement program. The Supreme Court considered a provision which permitted the President to approve trade codes, drafted by the businesses themselves, so as to ensure "fair competition."
3. Mistretta v. United States (1989) - Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers." The Court ruled that the commission was given substantial authority and discretion in setting the guidelines; however, Congress established a classification hierarchy for federal crimes that the Commission was to use as an outline for its work.
4. Industrial Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst. (1980) - acting under authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Secretary of Labor, after having demonstrated a link between exposure to benzene and leukemia, set a standard reducing the airborne concentrations of benzene to which workers could be exposed. The Court held that the Secretary had acted without knowledge that the new standard was necessary to "provide safe and healthful employment" as mandated by the Act. Nothing in OSHA's administrative record indicated that exposure to benzene at 10 ppm would cause leukemia and that exposure to one ppm would not.