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

### FAA - 2013 - 0398 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 - SW - 065 - 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. No 

### 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 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, 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**
Abatement Order filed January 12, 2023 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00897-CV

____________

IN RE MARIA CRISTINA DONNELLY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 477,195-401

ABATEMENT ORDER

On December 5, 2022, relator Maria Cristina Donnelly filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Michael Newman to 

vacate his November 29, 2022 docket control order. 

Because Judge Newman ceased to hold the office of Probate Court No. 2, 

Harris County, Texas, we are required to abate this mandamus proceeding to permit 

the respondent’s successor, the Honorable Pamela Medina, to consider the decision 

regarding relator’s request for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b); see also In re 

Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) 

(“Mandamus will not issue against a new judge for what a former one did.”). 
2

Therefore, we abate this proceeding, treat it as a closed case, and remove it 

from the court’s active docket. This original proceeding is abated until February 

13, 2023 to permit Judge Medina to consider the order underlying relator’s request 

for relief. On or before that date, Judge Medina shall advise this court of the action 

taken on relator’s request by filing a signed order reflecting her ruling concerning 

relator’s request for relief with this court. The court will then consider a motion to 

reinstate or dismiss the original proceeding, as appropriate.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
#### BILLINGER v. STATE.

No. 24638.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was .charged with possessing for the purpose of sale wine and beer in Collin County, Texas, a dry area.

Appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty before the Judge of the County Court, who found him guilty and assessed a fine of $100. From such conviction appellant perfected an appeal to *868this' court. .However, the .record is here 'without statement of facts or, bills of exception. In. such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28025]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,115]


Wallowa Forest Products, Wallowa, Oregon; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reopening

    On October 18, 2000, the company requested Administrative 
Reconsideration for workers and former workers of the subject firm 
engaged in the production of stud lumber.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
issued on October 3, 2000, because imports did not contribute 
importantly to the worker separations. The notice soon will be 
published in the Federal Register.
    New information submitted to the Department by the company and 
additional information supplied by a primary customer of the subject 
firm revealed that the customer has increased purchases of imported 
stud lumber while reducing purchases from the subject firm.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on reopening, it 
is concluded that increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with apparel produced by the subject firm contributed 
importantly to the decline in sales and to the total or partial 
separation of workers of the subject firm. In accordance with the 
provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I make the following revised 
determination:

    All workers of Wallowa Forest Products, Wallowa, Oregon, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
June 27, 1999 through two years from the date of this certification 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of October 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-28025 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6871

DEANDRE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00511-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: May 28, 2024 Decided: July 9, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deandre Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6871 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Deandre Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s final order and judgment 

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 

100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6871 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                              Management Assertion



For the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, NovaStar Mortgage,
Inc. has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period,
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of
$2,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $1,000,000.


Chris S. Miller
Senior Vice-President/Servicing Manger



February 9, 2001
#### MORRIS v. STATE.

No. 25158.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

No attorney, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, .Commissioner.

Conviction is for giving a check in the sum of $20 with the intent to defraud. Up*622on a plea of guilty, punishment was assessed at 9 months in the county jail.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
#### HARROD v. WHALEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 5, 1951.

Otis Harrod, pro se.

A.' E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Walter Herd-man, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

Soon after we affirmed a judgment dismissing Otis Harrod’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Harrod v. Whaley, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 480, he filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. It was denied and Har-rod appeals.

The story of the appellant’s previous efforts to be delivered from the penalty of imprisonment for life as an habitual criminal upon conviction of his latest crime of storehouse breaking is fully recited in the foregoing opinion. The point upon which his pleas rest is that the indictment was defective in omitting to charge that the several prior crimes were committed in sequence and that error was carried through the instructions.

As stated in Harrod v. Whaley, supra, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this relation is a collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction, and to escape its effect by that process it must be shown that the judgment is absolutely void as a matter of law. The purpose of a writ of coram nobis, broadly stated, is “to revest the court with jurisdiction in an extreme "emergency and permit inquiry into the important question of whether the judgment of conviction should be vacated because the defendant was unknowingly deprived of a defense which would have probably disproved his guilt and prevented his conviction, and if that probability be established to grant the defendant a-new trial of the accusation.” Anderson v. Buchanan, 292 Ky. 810, 819, 168 S.W.2d 48, 53. Though the purpose be broad, the scope of the writ is narrow. Thus, it is confined *751to vacating a judgment of conviction for “errors of fact” for which the defendant was not to blame. Anderson v. Buchanan, supra.

In the present case, all that the petitioner was able to plead is an error of law which was not raised even on an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Harrod v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 810, 226 S.W.2d 4. It was but an irregularity in procedural law. No real injustice was done the defendant, for it appears as a matter of fact that the several crimes were committed by him one after another following previous convictions.

The appellant, who again represents himself, confuses several constitutional rights and the purposes of the constitutional provisions he invokes. The same were claimed in his habeas corpus proceeding. The only one applicable was that of denial of due process of law, and it was disposed of in his previous appeal, Harrod v. Wha-ley, supra, in which we said, “The appellant was convicted by due process of law; in-fact, by all the processes which the Constitution and statutes provide, and his claim on this account is without merit.”

Judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Uziel Frydman, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The accompanying amended annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Sherwood Brands, Inc.



Date: October 1, 2003



/s/    UZIEL FRYDMANUziel FrydmanChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 102300E ]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Southeast Region Federal Fisheries Permit Family of Forms
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0205.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 1,583.
    Number of Respondents: 6,970.
    Average Hours Per Response: 5 minutes for a dealer permit 
application; 20 minutes for a vessel permit application; 45 minutes for 
a aquacultured live rock site evaluation form; 5 minutes for tracking 
wreckfish individual transferable quotas; 5 minutes for an observer 
notification, for a notification of lost or stolen crab traps, for a 
notification of a golden crab transit, or for an aquacultured live rock 
notification of harvest activity; and 15 minutes for a notification of 
trap retrieval.
    Needs and Uses: Participants in Federally-regulated fisheries in 
the Southeast U.S. are required to obtain Federal fishing permits. The 
information on the permit application is needed to determine 
eligibility, to provide data for the management of the fishery, and to 
aid enforcement of regulations. Permitted vessels are also required to 
provide notifications prior to certain specified activities.
    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations, and 
individuals.
    Frequency: On occasion, biennial.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79a94bbb6aea3b8b997b3b8b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99d4daf5f8e0edf6f7d9fdf6fab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: October 19, 2000.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer
[FR Doc. 00-27695 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-22 -S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28031]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,005]


Maxco-Tech Designs, Inc., Edgewater, NJ; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on August 28, 2000 in response to a petition filed by a 
company official on the same date on behalf of workers at Maxco-Tech 
Designs, Inc., Edgewater, New Jersey.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of October, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-28031 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### ROSS v. STATE.

No. 23110.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 9, 1945.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Notice of appeal appearing only as a docket memorandum, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Art. 827, C.C.P.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting: 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

# Time and Date: 

11:00 a.m., Monday, November 6, 2000. 

# Place: 

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. 

# Status: 

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information: 

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Dated: October 27, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-28064 Filed 10-27-00; 3:40 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS et al. v. RED ARROW FREIGHT LINES, Inc.

No. 9347.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Dec. 16, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1943.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen. and George W. Barcus, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant Railroad Commission of Texas.

Kelley & Looney and L. Hamilton Lowe, all of Edinburg, for appellant J. H. Robinson Truck Lines, Inc.

Rawlings, Sayers & Scurlock, of Fort Worth, for appellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

This is a companion case to cause No. 9348, Railroad Commission et al. v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, Inc., 167 S.W.2d 249, this day decided by this court. The cases were tried in the court below together and one record was made, and the brief filed in cause No. 9348 is filed in the instant case. Each case involves the controlling question of the power of the Commission to grant a reroute motor carrier service without an application, notice, hearing, and a finding based upon substantial evidence that the public convenience and necessity require or need the reroute service. The only difference in the cases is different routes, but 'the evidence as to the condition o'f the old route highways and the reroute highways is substantially the same; and the new or substantial service authorized by the reroute orders is substantially the same, the difference being only one of degree and not on principle involved. And upon our opinion in cause No. 9348, the judgment in cause No. 9347 is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<PAGE> 1
Exhibit 12

                    ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (Dollars in Thousands)

                            Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                            September 30, 1998    September 30, 1998
                              1998       1997       1998       1997

Net Earnings               $ 15,025  $ 42,412    $443,282    $28,013
Federal and state income 
  taxes                       6,439    14,748     (11,013)     9,741
Earnings before income 
  taxes                      21,464    57,160     432,269     37,754
Fixed charges:
  Interest                   39,165    88,414     142,936    239,673
  One-third of all rentals      583       746       2,006      2,572
  Preferred stock dividend 
    of subsidiary trust       2,248     2,248       6,743      6,743
  Total fixed charges        41,996    91,408     151,685    248,988
Earnings before income taxes
  and fixed charges         $63,460  $148,568     583,954    286,742
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges (A)                  1.51x     1.63x       3.85x      1.15x

(A)  For  purposes  of  computing these ratios,  "earnings"  represent
     income  before  income taxes plus fixed charges. "Fixed  charges"
     consist  of  interest expense, one-third (the  proportion  deemed
     representative  of  the interest factor)  of  rental  expense  on
     operating  leases,  and preferred stock dividends  of  subsidiary
     trust.
<PAGE>