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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0459 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-044-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
#### Angelo A. Wideman et al., Respondents, v Barbel Trucking, Inc., Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 723]

*450Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant earlier moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, based on defective service. It later argued that inasmuch as this action did not commence until service was then properly made, it had the right to submit another dismissal motion based upon lack of long-arm jurisdiction. But defendant’s prior appearance and motion constituted a submission to the court’s jurisdiction and a waiver of the long-arm jurisdictional defense (CPLR 3211 [e]; *Wiesener v Avis Rent-A-Car,*182 AD2d 372 [1992]; *see also Urena v NYNEX, Inc.,*223 AD2d 442 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
<PAGE>

Catalina Marketing Corporation
200 Carillon Parkway
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716

February 13, 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated by reference
in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525, 333-
13335 and 333-86905, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2001,
which includes our report dated January 16, 2002, covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Exhibit 99


Review Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants





The Board of Directors


Catalina Marketing Corporation





We have reviewed the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as of June 30, 2002, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three months ended June 30, 2002. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Companys management. The consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as of March 31, 2002, was audited by other accountants whose report dated April 18, 2002, expressed an unqualified opinion on that
statement. The condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows of Catalina Marketing Corporation for the three-month period ended June 30, 2001, were reviewed by other accountants whose report dated July 18, 2001, stated that they were
not aware of any material modifications that should be made to those statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.





We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.





Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements at June 30, 2002, and for the three-month period then ended for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





August 12, 2002


Tampa, Florida
#### Richard RUDISILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Craig APKER, Warden, FMC Butner, Respondent-Appellee, and United States of America, Respondent.

No. 15-6176

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Richard Donnell Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Donnell Rudisill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Rudisill v.*Apker, No. 5:12-hc-02311-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2015). We dispensé 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.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
               Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                  (In thousands, except per share amounts)


                                        Quarter ended October 5,
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                         1997                1998
                                  -------------------  -------------------
                                           Per Share            Per Share
                                  Shares    Amount     Shares    Amount
                                  ------  -----------  ------  -----------
<S>                                        <C>     <C>          <C>     <C>
Basic EPS. . . . . . . . . . . .  11,269  $     0.40   11,505  $     0.47 
Effect of dilutive stock options     348       (0.01)     240       (0.01)
                                  ------  -----------  ------  -----------
Diluted EPS. . . . . . . . . . .  11,617  $     0.39   11,745  $     0.46 
                                  ======  ===========  ======  ===========
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Nine months ended October 5,
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                         1997                1998
                                  -------------------  -------------------
                                           Per Share            Per Share
                                  Shares     Amount    Shares     Amount
                                  ------  -----------  ------  -----------
<S>                                        <C>     <C>          <C>     <C>
Basic EPS. . . . . . . . . . . .  10,949  $     1.05   11,450  $     1.28 
Effect of dilutive stock options     314       (0.03)     304       (0.03)
                                  ------  -----------  ------  -----------
Diluted EPS. . . . . . . . . . .  11,263  $     1.02   11,754  $     1.25 
                                  ======  ===========  ======  ===========
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
#### BANK OF AMERICA NA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnson D. KOOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1013

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 6, 2017

Johnson D. Koola, Appellant Pro Se. Theodore von Keller, CRAWFORD *&*VON KELLER, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnson D. Koola seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, from which it was removed. Bank of America has moved to dismiss the appeal.

Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read *in pari materia*with *[28*U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” *Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,*516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

> is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of ... § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.

*Doe v. Blair,*819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” *Borneman v. United States,*213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

Bank of America moved to remand within 30 days of Koola’s notice of removal, and *129the district court remanded on the basis that removal was untimely. The district court also concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore grant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. 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*
Opinion issued October 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00658-CR

———————————

BENEDICT EMESOWUM, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 10

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18495621

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Benedict Emesowum, attempts to appeal from an order denying 

his motion to recuse the trial court judge. We dismiss the appeal.

 

1 Appellant is pro se. The State of Texas is represented by Alan Curry, Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

The Judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 10 is the Honorable Sherman Ross.
2

Emesowum filed a motion in the trial court to recuse the trial court judge, 

the Honorable Sherman Ross. The motion was referred to the regional presiding 

judge, the Honorable Olan Underwood, who denied the motion. 

The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. TEX.

CODE CRIM. P. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a 

final judgment. State v. Sellers, 790 S.W. 2d 316, 321 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1990). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory 

orders in a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 

820 S.W.2d, 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Nothing in the language of Rule of 

Civil Procedure 18a, which sets for the procedures for recusal of judges in civil and 

criminal cases, or any Rule of Criminal Procedure, provides a right to an 

interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to recuse—regardless of the 

grounds asserted for recusal. See De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004) (stating procedures for recusal of judges set out in Rule 18a of Texas 

Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases). To the contrary, Rule 18a(j)(1) 

expressly states: “An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for 

abuse of discretion on the final judgment.” TEX R. CIV. PROC. 18a(j)(1).

Because there is no final judgment in this case, this is an interlocutory 

appeal over which we have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 
3

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all other pending 

motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
#### SEALED APPELLEE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20747 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 29, 2017

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant challenges the imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(4) for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with his offense of dealing in counterfeit United States currency. We review the legal conclusion that he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense de novo and any related factual findings or inferences for clear error. See *United States v. Coleman,*609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010).

According to Appellant, the district court erred in determining that there was a sufficient nexus between the firearm and his offense. He contends that the spatial or temporal proximity of a weapon to the evidence of an offense is not enough. The evidence showed that Appellant was selling and receiving large amounts of cash (counterfeit and genuine). At the time of his arrest, he was sleeping in his car in a parking lot with more than $30,000 in counterfeit bills in plain sight, and he admitted that he had been involved in the distribution of $400,000 in counterfeit currency. Agents found him there after he failed to show up at a planned sale to an undercover agent at which Appellant expected to receive $40,000 in genuine currency. Agents recovered a firearm in a search of his vehicle.

Given the facts of this case, it was reasonable to infer that the firearm was present to protect the counterfeit bills or the proceeds of their planned sale against theft. *See, e.g., United States v. Condren,*18 F.3d 1190, 1198-1200 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying a similar enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)). We find no error in the imposition of the enhancement. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Samuel J. MITCHELL v. STATE

CR-16-0277

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
To: File From: Michael Jensen, DOE GC-71 Date: July 27, 2010 Re: Ex parte discussion with California Department of Housing and Community Development

On July 27, 2010, Michael Jensen (GC-71), Ka te Gehringer (GC-52) , Harry Indig (EE2J), Bob Lucas (PNL), and Dave Conover (PNL) spoke with Kevin Cimini, Richard Weinert, and Bradley Harward, all of th e California Department of Housing and Community Development, on their office’s role as a State Administrative Agency (SAA) under the U.S. Department of Housing a nd Urban Development (HUD) manufactured housing program.

First, Mr. Cimini explained that California’s role as an SAA is to monitor defects in construction of manufactured homes as sp ecified in 24 C.F.R. 3282, Subpart I, and indicated that California no longer serves e ither as a design approval primary inspection agency or a production inspection primary in spection agency under the HUD program.

Mr. Cimini noted that California relies on consumer complaints, manufacturer reporting, installer reporting, and SAA record audits and investigations to mon itor the manufactured housing industry within the state. Mr. Ci mini approximated that California receives thirty to fifty consumer complaints each year and that energy-related complaints are extremely rare. Mr. Cimini stated that Calif ornia initiates approximately thirty to forty enforcement actions each year, almost all of which settle soon after initiation. Mr.

Cimini mentioned that the last case that di d not settle soon after en forcement proceedings

were initiated occurred five years ago; however, this case ev entually settled without the need for an informal or formal presentation of views.

Mr. Cimini stated that California inspects ne w home installations in mobile home parks under HCD jurisdiction and that building code official s inspect all other new

manufactured home installations. Mr. Cimi ni mentioned that lo cal building officials performing installation inspections are not as familiar with the federal regulations and may not be as thorough as they could be. California issues permits and inspects all manufactured home alteration projects regard less of location. Mr. Cimini estimated that sixty percent of manufactured homes within California are located on private property while an estimated forty percent are located in manufactured home parks. Mr. Cimini also noted that California has approximately fifty staff members that conduct inspections

and audits of manufactured homes.

Mr. Cimini noted that not many manufactured homes are using renewable resources as energy resources, including phot ovoltaic and geothermal syst ems. Finally, Mr. Cimini recommended Oregon and Nebraska state agen cies as other points of contacts.

End of conversation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      987000              465800
<SECURITIES>                                     0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1265200              164900
<ALLOWANCES>                                 83600               31200
<INVENTORY>                                      0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2778500              615600
<PP&E>                                     3410300             1334900
<DEPRECIATION>                              863700              297800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             6031200             1652700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4831500              315200
<BONDS>                                    3200000                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                      0                   0
<COMMON>                                     20000               10800
<OTHER-SE>                                (2020300)            1321300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               6031200             1652700
<SALES>                                    5032800              258000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           5032800              258000
<CGS>                                      4003800              239800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             10431500             3100500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          426200               68800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (9753600)           (3112800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                126800                 800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (9880400)           (3127900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0                   0
<CHANGES>                                        0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              (9880400)           (3127900)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.46)               (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.46)               (.32)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants

To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2001, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income
for the three-month and nine-month periods ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods
ended December 31, 2001 and 2000. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the objective
of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements
taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina
Marketing Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented herein), and, in our report dated April 19, 2001,
we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2001, is fairly stated, in all material respects,
in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                                                  /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP[AA1]



Tampa, Florida,
  January 16, 2002