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

### FAA - 201 3 - 0466 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 1 56 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t 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 togeth er. 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 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 w ith 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, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

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

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LAHAINA ACQUISITIONS, INC. FOR
MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED)  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          50,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,385
<PP&E>                                       2,929,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (55,179)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,366,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          537,641
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    428,823
<COMMON>                                        37,382
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,366,255
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,555
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (250,591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (250,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.11)


</TABLE>
TERRY ASHLEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5888

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed May 1 , 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

.

Terry Ashley, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney

Genera l, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0036n.06 No. 19

- 3579 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT EDY ESTUARDO AROCHE

- JUAREZ, Petitioner , v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

B efore : ROGERS, KETHLEDGE and LARSEN , Circuit Judges
. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge
. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against petitioner Edy Estuardo Aroche

- Juarez, a Guatemala n citizen who
was unlawfully present in the United States. During th o se proceedings, Aroche

- Juarez admitted that he was no t authorized to be in the country , b ut he argued that he was eligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) . That provision grants the Attorney General discretion to cancel an alien’s removal if , among other things, the removal would cause an “exception al and extremely unusual hardship” to the alien’s family members who were lawfully present in the United States. An immigration judge determined that Aroche

- Juarez ’s removal would not cause that level of extreme hardship to his two children, who are U.S. citizens. The IJ therefore denied relief
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229 b(b)(1)(D). Aroche

- Juarez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed. This petition followed.No. 19

- 3579 , Aroche

- Juarez v. Barr

- 2

-

Aroche

- Juarez argues that the Board violated his right to due process because, he says, it failed to “take as a whole” the effect that his removal would have on his ch ildren
. When an alien appeals the government’s refusal to cancel his removal, however, our jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, which include constitutional claims. See Ettienne v. Holder , 659 F.3d 513, 517

– 18 (6th Cir. 2011); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Here, the IJ and the Board did specifically consider each of the relevant factors and Aroche

- Juarez’s evidence in support of them. The substance of Aroche

- Juarez’s argument, in fact, is that the IJ and the Board gave “little weight” to
ce rtain hardship fact ors that he thinks are sufficient to warrant relief
. Aroche

- Juarez Br. at 57. He th erefore asks us to “second

- guess [] the agency’s weighing of factors”

— which is precisely the sort of review that we lack jurisdiction to undertake. Etti enne , 659 F.3d at 518

– 19. That conclusion remains the same even though Aroche

- Juarez “styled [his] appeal” as a question of law
. Id. at 519
. The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                     283,503
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              895,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                                69,900
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         1,362,598
<PP&E>                                                   2,172,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,353,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           2,249,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    2,060,194
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                  1,747
<COMMON>                                                     6,806
<OTHER-SE>                                                (151,105)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             2,249,884
<SALES>                                                    606,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           606,294
<CGS>                                                       60,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            3,842,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          27,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (3,252,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (3,252,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (3,252,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.54)


</TABLE>
#### JAMES L. BRADFORD v. THE UNITED STATES.

[47 C. Cls. R., 141; 228 U. S. R., 446.]

*On the claimant’s appeal.*

The claimant is convicted of conspiring to defraud the Government of public lands in Louisiana. The President pardons him upon condition that he make full restitution to the satisfaction of the district attorney. He executes releases of the lands embraced within the terms of the pardon, “ *reserving under the latos of Louisiana the right to all improvements, or the value thereof, and the fight to proceed against the United States for the same.”*

*508The court below decides:

Í. Where a person convicted of a conspiracy to defraud the Government of public lands is pardoned upon condition that he shall make full restitution, he can not reserve “ *under the laws of Louisiana the right to all improvements ”*which he has made on the land, or “ *the value thereof.”*

ÍI. A district attbrney is not authorized either by virtue of his office or the direction of the President to do any act which will obligate the United States to reimburse a person for money expended in the improvement of public lands.

III. The Government is in no way responsible for money expended on public lands by a wrongdoer; neither can it be made responsible by any act, nor by a conditional pardon, of the President.

IV. It is well settled by decisions of the courts of Louisiana that a person acquiring possession of the public lands of the United States without title can not set up a claim for improvements under the laws of that State.

V.Where all that the Government claimed and acquired was full restitution of lands that had been fraudulently possessed, there was no taking of private property within the meaning of the Constitution, and no contract can be implied founded on such restitution.

VI.No right can be acquired in relation to the public lands except under the authority of Congress.

VII.The theory of the law of Louisiana is “ *that no one should he made richer at the expense of another, even though the latter has acted in had faith.”*But the laws of Louisiana can not east a liability on the United States though the lands be situated within the State.

The decision of the court below is affirmed on the ground that the claimant has not established a contract against the United States.

April 28, 1913.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
Exhibit 21.1

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF OWL ROCK CAPITAL CORPORATION II 

|                  |   |         |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------|
|                  |   |         |
| Name                  |   | Jurisdiction |
|                  |   |         |
| OR LENDING II LLC     |   | DELAWARE     |
|                  |   |         |
| ORCC II FINANCING LLC |   | DELAWARE     |
|                  |   |         |
| OR DH II LLC          |   | DELAWARE     |
|                  |   |         |
|                  |   |         |
----

----

III Bekendmakingen

Raad

----

VACATURE

RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE

Ref. CONS/AD/046

ADMINISTRATEUR-ADVISEUR AUDIOVISUELE SECTOR

(2006/C 311 A/01)

Het secretariaat-generaal van de Raad van de Europese Unie zoekt kandidaten voor een vacante post in Eenheid 1, Persdienst, van zijn directoraat-generaal F (Pers, Communicatie, Protocol).

De verkozen kandidaat zal een contract aangeboden krijgen van tijdelijk functionaris in de rang AD10, voor een periode van vier jaar (met een stage van zes maanden), die slechts eenmaal met ten hoogste twee jaar kan worden verlengd.

Voor meer informatie over de vacature en over de wijze waarop de kandidatuur moet worden ingediend, raadplege men de vacature op de internetsite van de Raad:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/concours

Uiterste datum voor de indiening van de kandidaturen is 19 januari 2007 (als datum geldt die van het poststempel).

----
#### § 1.414(c)-1 Commonly controlled trades or businesses.

For purposes of applying the provisions of sections 401 (relating to qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans), 408(k) (relating to simplified employee pensions), 410 (relating to minimum participation standards), 411 (relating to minimum vesting standards), 415 (relating to limitations on benefits and contributions under qualified plans), and 416 (relating to top-heavy plans), all employees of two or more trades or businesses under common control within the meaning of § 1.414(c)-2 for any period shall be treated as employed by a single employer. See sections 401, 408(k), 410, 411, 415, and 416 and the regulations thereunder for rules relating to employees of trades or businesses which are under common control. See § 1.414(c)-5 for effective date.

[T.D. 8179, 53 FR 6606, Mar. 2, 1988]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51017 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAUL RONQUILLO-BARRAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-601-DB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raul Ronquillo-Barraza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ronquillo-Barraza contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Ronquillo-Barraza maintains thatNo. 03-51017 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Ronquillo-Barraza acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1158 

KA 14-00258 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TAKIEME JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (EVAN HANNAY OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F.

Aloi, J.), rendered January 6, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree

(four counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea

of guilty of four counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law 

§ 160.10 [1], [2] [b]), defendant contends only that the sentence is

unduly harsh and severe. We reject that contention. We note,

however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that

defendant was convicted on January 6, 2013, and it must therefore be

amended to reflect that he was convicted on January 6, 2014 (see

People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286, 1286-1287).

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**R e**  **s t**  **r i**  **c t**  **e d**  **F l**  **i g**  **h t**  **Z o**  **n e**  **s i**  **n A**  **r e**  **a**

**W e**  **w i**  **l l**  **b e**  **o p**  **e r**  **a t**  **i n**  **g t**  **o t**  **h e**  **s o**  **u t**  **h o**  **f t**  **h e**  **L o**  **g a**  **n I**  **n t**  **e r**  **n a**  **t i**  **o n**  **a l** 

**A i**  **r p**  **o r**  **t r**  **e s**  **t r**  **i c**  **t e**  **d z**  **o n**  **e i**  **n t**  **h e**  **B o**  **s t**  **o n**  **a r**  **e a** 

**. B**  **r a**  **i n**  **t r**  **e e** 

**, M**  **A (**  **h o**  **m e**  **o p**  **e r**  **a t**  **i o**  **n )**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Magellan Technology, Inc. Form 10-QSB  3rd Qtr 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                  110,035
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           296,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                           1,805,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      2,391,317
<PP&E>                                                1,113,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                          138,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        5,059,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5,823,533
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  3,520
<OTHER-SE>                                            1,439,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          5,059,872
<SALES>                                               1,855,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,855,079
<CGS>                                                   331,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      4,210,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      288,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       2,800,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,800,116
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                          2,800,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .17
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY MCGUIRE HAMMACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CR-97-10; CA-05-196-7)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny McGuire Hammack, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnny McGuire Hammack seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) (2000). 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 prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hammack

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny

Hammack’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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