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

### FAA
- 2011
- 0223 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010
-NM
- 161 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. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list l atest 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 M anager**  **Date**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21

- 0181

_________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ALIA DAY FLOREN,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v. JAVIER BAUTISTA

- SCHEUBER,

Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellee ’ s response brief filed electronically on December 1 , 2021 , this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the below

- referenced Rule s and must be resubmitted. M. R. App. P. 11(6)(b)(ii) provides that the cover page of the brief must include the cause number in this Court. Appellee ’ s response brief contains the incorrect caus e number. M. R

. App. P. 12(1)(a) requires that a brief contain a table of contents with page references and a table of cases, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited, alphabetically arranged. Appell ee ’s brief c ontains
a table of authorities ; however, its contents do not meet the requirements of M. R. App. P. 12(1)(a) due to incomplete citations to authorities with references to pages of the brief where they are cited. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(d) requires a statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented, with references to the pages or the parts of the record at which material facts appear. Appell ee 's statement of the facts fail s to cite to the record. M.R. App. P. 12(1)(g) requires that the brief contain citations to the authorities, statutes, and pages of the record relied on in the argument. Appell ee ’s response brief 12/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0181lacks sufficient citations to references throughout the argument section.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the Appellee shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing the revisions necessary to comply with the specified R ule s and that the Appellee shall serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record ; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions , or deletions other than those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that th e times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellee and to all parties of record.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 2 2021
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, BenKaplan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|                                            | /s/ Ben Kaplan          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Date:     May 17, 2004 | Ben Kaplan              |
|                                            | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Too Late Financial Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

October27, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                                  CATUITY INC.


                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 Catuity, Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John H. Lowry, 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:

(1)  The Reports 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: 11/14/02
      --------
                                                /s/ John H. Lowry
                                                ------------------------
                                                John H. Lowry
                                                Chief Financial Officer






                                                                              21
#### James Robert FOWLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28362.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1956.

*906No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Louie D. YOUNG, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28063.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1956.

See, also, 285 S.W.2d 749.

Piranio, Piranio & Ballowe, by Angelo Piranio, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., William F. Alexander and George "P. Blackburn, Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The sole question before us on this appeal is whether or not the trial court was authorized under the facts to pronounce the sentence which had previously been suspended.

On July 20, 1951, in Cause No. 142-AB in Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas *749Coünty, appellant having waived''a‘jury and entered a plea of guilty, was assessed a term of five years in the penitentiary for burglary and it was ordered that the sentence be suspended during his good behavior. ,

‘ On June 28, 1955, which was during the term of such suspension, a motion was filed in said court by the district attorney alleging that appellant had been convicted on January 16, 1952, in the Criminal Dis- - trict Court of Dallas County, of the offense •of burglary and praying that the sentence • previously -suspended be pronounced and cumulated with the sentence of January 16, 1952.

Appellant resisted the -motion and at the hearing sought to show that he entered -a plea of guilty in the conviction of January 1-6,= 1952, relying upon an agreement with the Assistant ■ Distridt Attorney in -charge of the prosecution of such case-that the suspended sentence he 'was ' under would not be revoked.

Appellant has served the sentence pronounced on January 16/1-952, which was the basis for the revocation of the suspension of the sentence of July 20, 1951, and insists that under the agreement with the Assistant District Attorney it should be held that he has served the sentence originally suspended. t. .,

Art. 779, V.A.C.C.P., provides that upon final conviction of the defendant for any other felony, pending the suspension of sentence, the court granting such suspension shall pronounce sentence upon the original- judgment of conviction and shall cumulate the punishment of the first with . the punishment of any subsequent conviction or convictions. These provisions are mandatory. Eldridge v. State,. 159 Tex. Cr.R. 79, 261 S.W.2d 579; Ex parte House, Tex.Cr.App., 276 S.W.2d 846.

There is no''suggestion in this record that the court was a party to any agreement which would have permitted the judgment of July 1951 to be satisfied or served concurrently with the sentence of January 1952. But if such an agreement had been made, it would be in violation of the mandatory provision of Art. 779, V.A.C.C.P., which provides* that the judge shall- cumulate the punishment of the first with any subsequent conviction or convictions.

A subsequent conviction for a felony being shown, the trial court did not err in pronouncing sentence upon the original felony conviction and ordering that it be cumulated with the punishment of the subsequent conviction. ,

The judgment is affirmed. '
1 Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as responde nt pursuant to Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

2 The BIA’s earlier decision denying a waiv er of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c), and finding Gahamanyi ineligible to adjust his status under 8 U.S.C. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1616

___________ Pacifique Gahamanyi, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 1 Attorney General * of the United States, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: October 8, 2009 Filed: October 14, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pacifique Gahamanyi, a native of Burundi and citizen of Rwanda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of I mmigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider an earlier decision, 2denying a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.§ 1159, is not properl y before us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days of final order of rem oval); Strato v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 651, 654-55 (8th Cir. 2004) (motion to rec onsider does not toll time for appeal of underlying removal order). -2- § 1182(h), and finding him ineligible for ad justment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’ s denial of a section 1182(h) waiver of inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (“no c ourt shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regard ing the granting of relief under section 1182(h)”), and, absent a waiver of inadmissibility, Gahamanyi is statutorily ineligible to adjust his status under section 1255, see 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (listing requirements for adjustment of status); cf. Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 436, 439 (8th Cir. 2008) (appeals courts not precluded from reviewing nondisc retionary decisions that pertain to statutory eligibility for discretionary relie f). As to the denial of the motion to reconsider, we find the BIA did not abus e its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) (motion to rec onsider must be filed within 30 days of order); Ghasemimehr v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (BIA did not abuse its disc retion in denying untimely motion to reopen). Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2138

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Eric Lawrence, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 2009 Filed: December 4, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eric Lawrence appeals the se ntence the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release, arguing that the 36-month prison term is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, cmt. n.4 (establishing a sentence above the recommended revocation range may be warranted where the original sentence resulted from a downward departure as a reward for substantial assistance); United States v. Eagle Thunder , 553 F.3d 605, 608-09 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding a revocation sentence-2- above the advisory Guidelines range was not unreasonable where defendant repeatedly violated supervised release); United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). We affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                        
|   



|Date: July 13, 2007
|-------------------



| | /s/ Andrew C. Frenette
Andrew C. Frenette
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00203-CR

Robert G. FLORES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR4663

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On November 9, 2021, appellant pled nolo contendere to possession of a firearm by a felon 

and was placed on community supervision for three years. On February 1, 2024, the trial court 

revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to three years in prison. Because 

appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due by March 4, 2024. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); R. 4.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file appellant’s notice of 

appeal was due by March 19, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. However, appellant did not file his 
04-24-00203-CR

- 2 -

notice of appeal until March 21, 2024. Furthermore, appellant did not file a motion for extension 

of time to file his notice of appeal. 

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo 

v. State, 918 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered

timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last 

day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within 

fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals 

grants the motion for extension of time. Id. 

On April 3, 2024, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by May 3, 2024 why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response to our 

order. Because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal and did not timely file a motion 

for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. See id.; Perkins v. State, No. 04-22-00398-CR, 2022 WL 3372418, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio Aug. 17, 2022, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal 

when appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal and failed to file a motion for extension of time 

to file a notice of appeal). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Lathern DORSETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27324.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

No statement of facts or bills of exception appear in the record.

The judgment herein recites that the jail term is probated.

In compliance with the holding in Gilderbloom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 272 S.W.2d 106, the judgment herein is reformed so as to eliminate the provision for probation and, as reformed, is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

p0129 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139117 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139117 COA: 290955 St. Joseph CC: 01-010602-FC JERRAD LEE KOLLER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MC R 6.508(D).
Exhibit 32.1

                      AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004 of AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher M. Condron, Chairman of the Board, President and 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:

(1)     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                  /s/ Christopher M. Condron
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Christopher M. Condron
                                  Chairman of the Board,
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 31, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131805 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131805 

 COA: 260627 

Wayne CC: 03-010444

MICHAEL EDWARD MABINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk