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

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 548 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 0 08 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### CF - 2012 - 31R1 **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 yes, list 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 iss ue**  (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 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 o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

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

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Adam MATOS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3313

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Jason DINGMAN, individually, and Jason Dingman and Amy Dingman, as parents and natural guardians of Kayla Dingman, a minor, Appellants, v. ALLO REALTY, INC., Diana Goldman, William Lobrutto, Tonya M. Vonkomarnicki and Guscenie Boston, Jr., Appellees.

No. 4D17-1558

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code.

Joe W. Forehand, the Chief Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best
of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 10, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    JOE W. FOREHAND 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Joe W. Forehand        
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2535
<SECURITIES>                                    518
<RECEIVABLES>                                   545
<ALLOWANCES>                                     62
<INVENTORY>                                      26
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3816
<PP&E>                                         1320
<DEPRECIATION>                                  430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2162
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         23
<OTHER-SE>                                     6228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10301
<SALES>                                        3088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3088
<CGS>                                          1621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 746
<INCOME-TAX>                                    291
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             455
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    455
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .18



</TABLE>
#### Robert HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLEGE OF THE ALBEMARLE; Kandi Deitmeyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1546

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

*258Robert Howard, Appellant Pro Se. John D. Leidy, HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, LLP, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, arid HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Howard appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer and denying several discovery motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm- for the reasons stated by the district court. *Howard v. Coll. of the Albemarle,*No. 2:15-cv-00039-D, 2017 WL 1156015 (E.D.N.C Mar. 27, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Robert E. PACE, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0279

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.02C
AMENDMENT TO 
AMENDED AND RESTATED CHAIRMAN’S SERVICES AGREEMENT




This Amendment (“Amendment”) is made as of January 1, 2019 by and between Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Choice"), and Stewart Bainum, Jr. (“Mr. Bainum”) and amends that certain Amended and Restated Chairman’s Services Agreement dated September 10, 2008 between the parties (as amended, the “Agreement”).  


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained in this Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to the following terms:


1.  Compensation.  Section 3(a) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following: 


		
	(a)
	Base salary of $400,000 per annum payable as follows: 




(i)     $132,000 in cash consideration, paid in bi-weekly installments; and


		
	(ii)
	$268,000 in restricted stock, in the form of a number of restricted shares that have a fair market value on the grant date (determined based on the New York Stock Exchange reported closing price of the stock on the date of the Company’s annual stock grant to employees) equal to $268,000, the vesting of which shall occur in three equal installments on the first, second and third anniversary of the grant date.




2.  Miscellaneous.


(a) All other provisions of the Agreement not modified by this Amendment remain in full force and effect.


(b)  The Agreement and this Amendment contains the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes all other agreements, discussions or understandings concerning the subject matter. The Agreement may be changed only by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. 




	
				
	 
	Choice Hotels International, Inc.    
	 
	Chairman:

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 /s/ Patrick Cimerola
	 
	 /s/ Stewart Bainum, Jr.

	 
	Patrick Cimerola
	 
	Stewart Bainum, Jr.

	 
	Chief Human Resources Officer
14390

#### COOPER RIVER BRIDGE, INC., v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM. *ET AL.*

(188 S. E., 508)

*80
      *Messrs. John M. Daniel, Attorney General, and Claude K. Wingate,*for appellants,

*Messrs. Mitchell ■& Horlbeck,*for respondent,

December 1, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fishburne.

The facts and issues involved in this appeal are fully stated in the decree of his Honor, Judge Grimball, which wil be reported. We are in accord with the conclusions reached by him and with his disposition of the case.

*81Accordingly, the exceptions thereto are overruled, and the judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler and Messrs Justices Bonham and Baker and Mr. Acting Associate Justice A. L. Gaston concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000884124
<NAME>                        GALEY & LORD, INC.                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-2-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-4-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-3-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                           9,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    179,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               399,765
<PP&E>                                         511,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 993,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,915
<BONDS>                                        665,484
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           122
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   993,217
<SALES>                                        483,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,468
<CGS>                                          435,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  435,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,374
<INCOME-TAX>                                       238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        


</TABLE>
Grady C. LOVE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the denial of petitioner's postconviction motion after evidentiary hearing, orders dated February 2, 2017 and August 25, 2017, are granted in circuit court case number 04-CF-1346B. This order shall serve as a notice of appeal for purposes of calculating the time standards of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Within twenty days the trial court shall consider appellant's eligibility for appointment of appellate counsel, provided appellant files within ten days a motion in the circuit court requesting same accompanied by a financial affidavit, and shall enter an order thereupon, with a copy to appellant and a copy to this court. This ten-day time limit shall not limit the trial court's authority to provide counsel to appellant.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700195

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

BEAU T. PERKINS

Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel Joseph P. Lisiecki, USMCR.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Support 

Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West, Marine Corps Base, Camp 

Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel Todd 

Enge, USMC.

For Appellant: Commander C. Eric Roper, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 17 August 2017

_________________________

Before MARKS, RUGH, and RUSSELL, 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
EXHIBIT 21.1
  A)
    
    Westernbank Puerto Rico  an insured non-member commercial bank organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.Subsidiaries of Westernbank Puerto Rico:
 1.
    
    Westernbank World Plaza, Inc.  incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.2.
    
    Westernbank Insurance Corp.  a registered insurance agency organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.3.
    
    SRG Net, Inc.  incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.4.
    
    W International Corp. (Inactive)  an International banking entity incorporated
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.5.
    
    Westernbank Financial Center Corp.  incorporated under the provision of
Section 607.0501 of the Florida Business Corporation Act of the State of Florida. The
corporation commenced its operations in February 2007 and discontinued operations in
the third quarter of 2008.
 B)
    
    Westernbank Securities, Inc. (Inactive)  a registered securities broker-dealer incorporated under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50735

Summary Calendar

 

DAVID ANTHONY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-98-CV-524

- - - - - - - - - -

March 18, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Anthony, Texas prisoner #602435, appeals from the

dismissal of his habeas corpus petition seeking relief from a

prison disciplinary hearing that resulted in the loss of goodconduct time for failure to exhaust state-law remedies. Texas

state courts will not entertain habeas corpus challenges to

prison disciplinary proceedings. Ex parte Palomo, 759 S.W.2d

671, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Accordingly, a Texas prisoner

seeking to challenge the outcome of a prison disciplinary hearing
No. 98-50735

-2-

in habeas corpus proceedings need exhaust only prison grievance

procedures. See Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 258 n. 3 (5th

Cir. 1993). The district court therefore erred by holding that

Anthony had failed to exhaust state-law remedies because he had

not sought relief in state court following his pursuit of relief

in the prison grievance procedure. Should the district court

wish to consider the exhaustion issue following our remand, the

district court may wish to obtain copies of Anthony’s prison

grievances and the responses to those grievances.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CORY DEVON ANDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-679

[February 8, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Lawrence Michael Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

432015CF000055A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. 

Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael R. Sayre   
|Chief Executive Officer
Saitta 

J. 

(1990). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this 

appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

044' 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge 

Charles H. Hill 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'We have reviewed all of the proper person documents submitted in 

this matter and we conclude no relief is warranted for the reasons stated 

above. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
#### Anthony WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY; Governor of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6576

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Anthony Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*149Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing ■without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Here, the district court concluded that Wright failed to state a claim, in part, because he had not alleged facts to support his eonclusory assertion that the alleged denial of access to the courts impeded litigation in certain prior proceedings. Because this deficiency may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Wright seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Wright to file another amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED*