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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2016-4878 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2016-CE-001-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.

No 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
T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160453

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements listed below of Digex, Incorporated, of our report dated January 30,
2001, except for the second, fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs of Note 14 and
the first paragraph of Note 15, as to which the date is March 2, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Digex,
Incorporated, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Digex, Incorporated
for the year ended December 31, 2001.

      .     (Form S-8 No. 333-84025) pertaining to the registration of 9,000,000
            shares of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Digex
            Incorporated Long Term Incentive Plan.

      .     (Form S-8 No. 333-34506) pertaining to the registration of 650,000
            shares of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Intermedia
            Communications Inc. 401 (k) plan

      .     (Form S-8 No. 333-39098) pertaining to the registration of 6,000,000
            shares of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Digex
            Incorporated Long Term Incentive Plan.

      .     (Form S-8 No. 333-40240) pertaining to the Digex Incorporated 401(k)
            Plan.


                                        /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 28, 2002
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00376-CR 

EX PARTE SAMUEL ALEMAN PINEDA, APPELLANT 

 

 

On Appeal from the 140th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2008-418,759, Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Presiding 

 

October 27, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Samuel Aleman Pineda appeals a trial court order denying his motion 

for appointment of counsel for purposes of post-conviction litigation. We dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2006. In 2015, 

Appellant filed a motion in the trial court to appoint counsel to represent him in filing an

application for writ of habeas corpus under art. 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant appealed the order.

Exclusive jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final felony convictions

vests in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of TX., 
2

Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5. Consequently, intermediate “appellate courts have 

scrupulously declined to intervene in pending art. 11.07 actions, noting [the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals’] exclusive jurisdiction.” Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117 (citing In re 

McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding)). 

Article 11.07 simply contains no role for the intermediate courts of appeals; the only 

courts to which art. 11.07 refers are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718. 

Moreover, a decision to deny appointed counsel is not an appealable order given 

that it involves a preliminary matter. Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2010) (involving the denial of counsel to assist in securing post-conviction 

DNA testing). This coupled with our lack of jurisdiction over art. 11.07 proceedings 

leads us to conclude that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at bar. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 22-1827

Filed: April 3, 2023

________________________________________

)

TRENT MATHEW THACHER, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. )

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

 Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

ORDER

As the Court explained in its February 7, 2023 Order, the Court has been unable to 

contact Plaintiff in this case since his release from jail on December 31, 2022. See ECF No. 12. 

In that Order, the Court stated that it would dismiss this action for failure to prosecute under Rule 

41(b) if Plaintiff had not updated the Court and the Government with his current address by 

March 24, 2023. Id.

The Court has not received any update regarding Plaintiff’s contact information. 

Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to Rule 41(b). This dismissal does not 

operate as an adjudication on the merits and shall be without prejudice. The Clerk is hereby 

directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Edward H. Meyers

Edward H. Meyers

Judge
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1998
[CASH]                                            2152
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                    10979
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                            2796
[DEPRECIATION]                                    2116
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                   92408
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                                0
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                          3888
[OTHER-SE]                                       23188
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                     92408
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                  7719
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                     5738
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                   1981
[INCOME-TAX]                                       825
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                               1156
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                      1156
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                     0.20
[EPS-DILUTED]                                     0.20
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2














CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER
REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING


FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS









I,
Jeffrey T. Fisher, the Chief Financial Officer of Charter Communications
Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation (the
"Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:




·
            fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and




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











/s/ Jeffrey T.
Fisher


Jeffrey T.
Fisher


Chief Financial
Officer


(Principal Financial
Officer)


March21, 2008
A.T. IV v. DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160074

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
454 A.2d 149

#### Chang, et ux., Appellants v. Rheem Textile Sys. Inc., et al.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied March 2, 1983.

Argued December 16, 1981.

James P. McEvilly, Jr., for appellants; Richard A. Kraemer, for appellee.

Before WICKERSHAM, BECK and POPOVICH, JJ.

Order affirmed.
#### IN RE: Dan LEE, Sr., Debtor. *312Dan Lee, Sr., Appellant, v. D. Matthew Edwards, Appellee.

No. 17-1105

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 29, 2017

Filed: October 4, 2017

Dan Lee, Sr., Pro Se

D. Matthew Edwards, Burns & Taylor, Sikeston, MO, for Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dan Lee appeals after the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s1 denial of a post-judgment motion in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Having carefully reviewed the record and Lee’s arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. *See In re Vote,*276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. Lee’s motion for a protective order is denied.

1

. The Honorable Barry S. Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### James C. Taylor, Respondent, *v.*Jeremiah V. Spader, Appellant.

(Argued September 21, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action to recover damages for the conversion of 100 barrels of flour deposited with defendant, a warehouseman in the city of New York, by one Walter S. Hicks, who took a warehouse receipt therefor, acknowledging the receipt of the flour, on account of and subject to the order of S. F. Taylor, plaintiff's agent, who assigned and transferred the receipt to plaintiff. Defendant refused to deliver the flour on demand. Subsequently John W. Padden commenced an action of replevin against Hicks and defendant, claiming that Hicks had purchased the flour of him fraudulently. The sheriff took the flour, but redelivered the same to defendant, upon his giving security. That action was pending at the time of the commencement of the present one. The defendant herein set up, in his answer, the claim of Padden and the pendency of the replevin suit. Padden then commenced an action against plaintiff, claiming title to the flour and praying that the warehouse receipt be canceled, and plaintiff be restrained from prosecuting this action. Plaintiff set up his title in his answer; that action was tried and resulted in favor of plaintiff (the defendant therein). The judgment was sustained upon appeal. (44 N. Y., 371.) Padden indemnified the defendant in this action, and assumed and conducted the defense. *Held,*that the judgment in the case of *Padden*v. *Taylor,*was conclusive upon the defendant herein. *Also, held,*that defendant, not having based his refusel to deliver *665up the property upon the ground that the warehouse charges were not paid, and not having placed his defense upon that ground, could not avail himself of that objection upon trial.

*F. N. Bangs*for the appellant.

*L. A. Fuller*for the respondent.

Earl and Leonard, CC., read for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40270 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

*403Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following a jury trial, Jorge Rocha was convicted of and sentenced for assaulting a federal officer by contact and infliction of bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b), and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine and 500 grams and more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Rocha appeals his methamphetamine possession conviction on two related grounds. He asserts that the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that he had knowledge of the type and quantity of controlled substance involved in his offense. In the alternative, Rocha asserts that the jury instructions were deficient because they did not require that the jury find that he knew the type and quantity of controlled substance that he possessed.

As Rocha concedes, his arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that *Flores-Figueroa v. United States,*556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not overturn *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the Government is not required to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity as an element of a § 841 drug offense.

Accordingly, Rocha’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment 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.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132422 & (22)(23) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, RYAN SINGER, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132422 COA: 273011 Oakland CC: 05-066031-NH MICHAEL FREEDLAND, M.D., MICHAEL FREEDLAND, M.D., P.C., and VISAGE SPA, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Nove mber 1, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Co urt. The motion to stay the trial court proceedings is DENIED.

d1121 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.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
David Blair JACOBBAUSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4105

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Elmer Eugene HIGGERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellee.

No. 18448.

United States Court oí Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1966.

Elmer Eugene Higgerson, Springfield, Mo., filed brief pro se.

F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., and William A. Kitchen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., filed brief for appellee.

Before MATTHES, MEHAFFY and LAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Elmer Eugene Higgerson, a prisoner confined as a medical patient at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, brought habeas proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, seeking his release. This appeal is from Chief Judge Becker’s order dismissing the petition.

On April 17, 1951 appellant entered pleas of *nolo contendere*in three cases, each containing multiple counts, and was sentenced to a total term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was released from prison on October 21, 1960 but retaken into custody as a mandatory release violator on September 24,1964.

The sole issue here is whether under the Constitution and statutes of the United States, appellant is entitled to have the time of his mandatory or conditional release treated as time served on his sentence. Appellant states the issue as: “Does time spent on parole or mandatory release count on a prisoner’s sentence ?”

The answer to appellant’s question is no. It is settled law in this circuit that a violator of a conditional release or parole has no such entitlement. Howard v. United States, 274 F.2d 100 (8th Cir. 1960); Hedrick v. Steele, 187 F.2d 261 (8th Cir. 1951). These two cases discuss the applicable constitutional provisions and statutes and resolve the issue squarely contrary to appellant’s contentions here.

The District Court’s order overruling the petition for habeas corpus is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tara D. CHILDRESS Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1307

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 4, 2017

Filed: August 11, 2017

Joseph M. Marquez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tara D. Childress, Pro Se

Jacquelyn E. Rokusek, Rokusek & Stein Law, Shawnee, KS, Defendant-Appellant

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Tara Chil-dress challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to drug and robbery charges, pursuant to a written plea agreement which included an appeal waiver. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the issue that the sentence was unreasonable. Childress has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that counsel was ineffective and disputing the Guidelines calculations; and a motion for appointment of new counsel.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Childress entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the arguments fall within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, as it would be better litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, we have independent*178ly reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found, no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the motion for new counsel, and dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1340

HOLLY JEAN NOLAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ROBERT WILKIE, Secretary for Department of Veteran Affairs; CHRIS SUNUNU, Governor of New Hampshire; PETER HUTCHINS, PLLC, Attorney; PHIL SCOTT, Governor of Vermont; BERNIE SANDERS, US Senator; JEANNE SHAHEEN, US Senator; PATRICK LEAHY, US Senator; COMMITTEE ON TEMPORARY SHELTER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for t he Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 00063

- MR

- WCM )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Holly Jean Nolan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Holly Jean Nolan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing h er 42
U. S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without p rejudice. 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 Indu s. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because it is p ossible that Nolan could cure the
defects in h er complaint th rough amendment, the order s he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc ’ y , Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 25, 628

- 30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we
d ismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with
instructions to allow Nolan to file an amended complaint. We dis pense 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
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant  (as of July 1, 2012)

1-800-FLOWERS
Service Support Center, Inc. (New York)
1-800-FLOWERS Team Services, Inc. (Delaware)
1-800-FLOWERS Retail, Inc. (Delaware)
1-800-FLOWERS.COM Franchise Co., Inc. (Delaware)
800-FLOWERS, Inc. (New York)
Conroy's Inc. (California)
The Popcorn Factory, Inc. (Delaware)
Guarded Realty Holdings, LLC (Delaware)
BloomNet, Inc. (Delaware)
The Winetasting Network (California)
Cheryl & Co. (Ohio)
Floranet Iberia S.L. (Spain)
Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
Fannie May Confections, Inc. (Delaware)
Harry London Candies, Inc. (Ohio)
Fresh Gift Cards, Inc. (Florida)
DesignPac Co., Inc. (Delaware)
DesignPac Gifts, LLC (Illinois)
Napco Marketing Corp. (Delaware)
Fannie May Franchise, LLC (Delaware)
1-800-Flowers Virginia, Inc. (Virginia)
Celebrations, LLC (Delaware)
Fine Stationery, Inc. (Delaware)
Flowerama of America, Inc. (Iowa)
Greatfoods, LLC (Delaware)
18F UK Holding Company Limited (United Kingdom)
FOL UK Holding Company Limited (United Kingdom)
1-800-Flowers.com DO Brasil Participacoes LTDA (Brazil)
Lucy ventures LLC (Virginia)
Piper Ventures (Virginia)
WTN Services LLC (California)
WTN Marketing Agent LLC (Delaware)

---



QuickLinks