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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1071 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-070-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
# C_2015425EN.01001701.xml

| 18.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 425/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 425/17

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 425/10)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Spain

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Unesco’s World Cultural and and Natural Heritage Sites — Segovia

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design depicts in the foreground the aqueduct of Segovia. At the top of the inner circle and in circular sense is the name of the issuing country ‘ESPAÑA’ and underneath it the year of issuance ‘2016’. At the top right is the mint mark.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : 8 million

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  :

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
No. 07-16-00416-CV

In re Dallas James Moore §

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

November 29, 2016

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 29, 2016, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed.

o O o
#### Zachary Engel, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Zachary Engel, Plaintiff, v Seong S. Kim, Defendant. (Action No. 2.)

[774 NYS2d 774]

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries that were joined for trial, the City of New York, the defendant in action No. 1, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of *627a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered June 17, 2002, as, upon a jury verdict finding it 75% at fault in the happening of the accident and finding Seong S. Kim, the defendant in action No. 2, 25% at fault, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the words “defendants The City of New York having an address at 350 Jay Street, New York, New York, and” from the second and third decretal paragraphs thereof, and adding thereto a decretal paragraph dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York.

The plaintiff was injured while walking in a crosswalk when he was struck by a vehicle driven by Seong S. Kim, the defendant in action No. 2. He commenced an action against Kim and an action against the City of New York. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that a proximate cause of the accident was the City’s failure to have installed crosswalk warning signs. After a joint trial, the jury found Kim 25% at fault in the happening of the accident and the City 75% at fault. We reverse insofar as appealed from and dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the City.

While issues of proximate cause are generally left to the jury *(see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*73 NY2d 650, 659 [1989]; *Matera v Mystic Transp.,*308 AD2d 514, 517 [2003]), here there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that would have led a rational jury to conclude on the evidence presented that the City’s failure to install crosswalk warning signs was a proximate cause of the accident (see *Alexander v Eldred,*63 NY2d 460, 467 [1984]; *Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493 [1978]; *Matera v Mystic Transp., supra; Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]; *cf. Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 316 [1980]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### Bean and others vs. Whitcomb and others.

Where in an equity case an appeal is taken without any bill of exceptions being settled, and without the evidence being preserved in any authentic manner, the only question that can be reviewed in this court is, whether the finding of the court below sustains the judgment.

Where the judgment is for a strict foreclosure, and adjudges that_the “ defendants,” being the mortgagor and subsequent incumbrancers, pay the amount due within a specified time, and that in default thereof they be barred, &c., this is not an absolute personal judgment against the subsequent incumbran-cers, and they are not entitled to have it reversed on appeal.

*432April 10.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Racine*County.

No statement of tbe case is necessary.

*Eugene S.*Turner, for ajipellants.

*Strong &*Fuller, for respondents.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

As there was no bill of exceptions settled in tbis case, and tbe evidence was not preserved and presented to tbis court in any authentic manner, we cannot examine most of tbe questions made by tbe appellants.

Tbe only one we can pass on is, whether tbe finding of tbe court below warrants tbe judgment. Tbe only reason urged why it does not, is that there is a personal judgment against all tbe defendants, some of whom were mere subsequent incumbrancers, for tbe whole amount due on tbe mortgage. But on examining tbe judgment, we think it is not liable to tbis objection. Tbe action and judgment were for a strict foreclosure. And although it is adjudged that tbe defendants pay tbe amount due within a specified time, yet tbe only result of their not doing it was, that they would be barred, and tbe title vested in tbe plaintiff. It was necessary to give tbis privilege to tbe subsequent incumbranc-ers, as well as to tbe mortgagor, for they all bad tbe right to redeem. But tbe judgment cannot be deemed an absolute personal judgment against them, nor even against tbe mortgagor. It carries on its face tbe antidote to such a construction.

*We*can only affirm it, with costa
**From:** Vickie Patton

**Sent:** 8/30/2005 9:47:16 AM **To:** Michael Goo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Janet

McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Peter **CC:** Mark MacLeod; Hilary Sinnamon **Subject:** RICE/Demand Response --FERC Order 745 & RICE Health Effects 

### Page 1 of 1

11/29/2012 file://C:\Program Files (x86)\Documentum\CTS\Adlib Express\Work\20121129T093514. ...
U.S. EPA- .q~°' ;0?d 2 

D1V. OF EP3VihtiNt°1"P1TAL 

PLAWd(NG & f~iri0 ; EOTl0N 

,*tatQ of Nef>rr Jiers.eg 2010 MAY 12- P~ %1 : 22 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

CHRIS CHRISTIE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BOB MARTIN 

Governor DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Commissioner 

P.O. BOX 027 

KIM GUADAGNO TRENTON, NJ 08625-0027 

Lt . Governor 

May 7, 2010 

Barbara Finazzo, Director 

United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2 

Divisioli of Enviromnental Planning and Protection 

290 Broadway 

New York, New York 10007-1866 

Dear Director Finazzo: 

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a supplement to New Jersey's State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision dated April 21, 2009. This supplement consists of 

administrative changes made to N.J .A.C . 7 :27 -19 et .seq ., Control and Prohibition of Air 

Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen. A copy of the corrections published in the New Jersey 

Register (NJR) and the updated Subchapter 19 rule are attached . The specific administrative 

changes consist of the following: 

1 . N.J .A.C 7 :27 - 19.1 - Definitions : The definition of "interim period" erroneously 

listed the end date of "but no later than 12 months after May 19, 2010." The text "12 

months after" should have been removed from the final rule to correctly state "but no 

later than May 19, 2010. (NJR dated July 6, 2009) 

2. N.J .A.C . 7 :27-19 .29(b)2 - 2009 HEDD Emission Reduction Compliance 

Demonstration Protocol : The deadline for submission of the 2009 HEDD Emission 

Reduction Compliance Demonstration Protocol was incorrectly inserted in the final 

rule as the date 30 days after the operative date instead of the operative date of the 

rule . The erroneous date was corrected to the rule operative date of May 19, 2009 . 

(NJR dated June 15, 2009) 

If you have any questions regarding this SIP supplement, please contact Chris Salmi, Assistant 

Director of Air Quality Management in the NJDEP's Division of Air Quality, at (609) 984-1484. 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer, Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable 
Enclosure: New Jersey Register, Monday, July 6, 2009 

New Jersey Register, Monday, June 15, 2009 

N.J .A.C. 7:27-19, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of 

Nitrogen 

c: Ray Werner, USEPA 

Chris Salmi, NJDEP 

Sharon Davis, NJDEP
# C_2016127EN.01000101.xml

| 9.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7649 — Varo/Argos DSE/Vitol/Carlyle/Reggeborgh)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 127/01)

On 21 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7649. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7649. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2185

___________ Sally Harrison, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 30, 1999

Filed: April 1, 1999

___________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sally Harrison appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny Harrison's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewedthe record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the decision of the Commissioner

is supported by substantial evidence and Harrison is not disabled. Because an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose in this fact-intensive case, we affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2015413EN.01000501.xml

| 12.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/5

---

Special Report No 17/2015

‘Commission’s support of Youth Action Teams: redirection of ESF funding achieved, but insufficient focus on results’

(2015/C 413/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 17/2015 ‘Commission’s support of Youth Action Teams: redirection of ESF funding achieved, but insufficient focus on results’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU Bookshop.

---
Filed 12/6/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 251

Eric Lance Sabot, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20180191

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial

District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Ladd R. Erickson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Washburn, ND, for respondent

and appellee; submitted on brief.
Sabot v. State

No. 20180191

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Eric Sabot appeals from a district court order summarily dismissing his

application for post-conviction relief. Sabot was found guilty of terrorizing and his

conviction was affirmed in State v. Sabot, 2017 ND 280, 904 N.W.2d 469. Sabot

applied for post-conviction relief claiming his sentence was illegal, he was denied

equal protection of the law, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and

evidence not previously heard required vacation of his sentence. The State answered

Sabot’s application and moved for summary disposition, claiming his application did

not raise issues of material fact. Sabot responded to the motion but did not submit any

affidavits or other competent admissible evidence. The district court summarily

dismissed the application, ruling Sabot failed to raise an issue of material fact. 

[¶2] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(7); Howard v. State,

2015 ND 102, 863 N.W.2d 203 (holding applicant for post-conviction relief resisting

a motion for summary disposition may not rely on pleadings or unsupported

conclusoryallegations, but must present competent, admissible evidence raising issue

of material fact).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte

1
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 20600260

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JARROD J. OBEY II

Seaman (E-2), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Paul C. Leblanc, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 29 November 2016

_________________________

Before MARKS, FULTON, and ELLINGTON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
1

 
of a copy hereof containing multiple signature pages, each signed by one party, but togethersigned by both parties hereto.     **5. ****Code Section 409A Compliance**. Notwithstanding anything in the Employment Agreementor this Amendment to the contrary, if any provision thereof or hereof would result in theimposition of an additional tax under Code Section 409A and related regulations and Treasurypronouncements (“Section 409A”), that provision will be reformed to avoid imposition of theapplicable tax and no action taken to comply with Section 409A shall be deemed to adversely affectExecutive’s rights under the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive and the Company have executed this Amendment to be effective forall purposes as of the Effective Date.      **EXECUTIVE**:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALFREDO SANDOVAL-SANCHEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50552

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00423-MWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Alfredo Sandoval-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

FILED

MAY 23 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sandoval-Sanchez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Sandoval-Sanchez the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed. 

Sandoval-Sanchez waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the

exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also

waived the right to appeal five specified issues related to his sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of

Sandoval-Sanchez’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the

sentencing appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the

remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waivers. See United States v.

Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 12-50552
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kelly,
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 13, 2011

d0112 

# Order

January 13, 2011

141634

CLAUDE McMANUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and

VALERIE McMANUS-ZOERHOF, Plaintiff,

v SC: 141634 COA: 290249 Kent CC: 05-002677-CK KEVIN M. TOLER, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY 

### and H ATHAWAY 

### , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

Deltic Timber Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the registration statements (No. 333-34317, No. 333-76294, and No. 333-90026) on Form S-8 of Deltic Timber Corporation of our reports dated March 6, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Deltic Timber Corporation
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Deltic Timber Corporation.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements includes an explanatory paragraph that states the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (effective January 1, 2007), Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, and Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin
No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in the Current Year Financial Statements (both effective January 1, 2006), and SFAS No. 158, Employers Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plansan amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)(effective December 31, 2006).



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP         
|                     
|KPMG LLP             
|Shreveport, Louisiana
|March 6, 2008