Task: Text Completion
Input (English): United States v. Quintero, 937 F.2d 95, 96-97 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Frierson, 945 F.2d 650, 654-55 (3d Cir.1991) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that he was deprived of the benefit of his bargain by the application of the relevant conduct guideline to a count dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1515, 117 L.Ed.2d 651 (1992); United States v. Williams, 880 F.2d 804, 805-06 (4th Cir.1989) (rejecting the defendant’s assertion that he was denied the benefit of his bargain); United States v. Rodriguez-Nuez, 919 F.2d 461, 464 (7th Cir.1990) (rejecting the contention that it was "fundamentally unfair" to apply § 1B1.3(a)(2) to a count dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain); United States v. Scroggins, 880 F.2d 1204, 1213-14 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1083, 110 S.Ct. 1816, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court had discretion where plaintiff sought to amend a count that had been dismissed with prejudice (B) holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed (C) holding that application of  1b13a2 to a dismissed count was not inequitable because the plea bargain did not impliedly preclude the district court from considering evidence of the conduct charged in the dismissed count and the defendant could have predicted that the court would aggregate the conduct (D) holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim (E) holding where there was no indication in the procedural history that the court had held that the five prior appeals dismissed for failure to prosecute were frivolous that the dismissals did not count as strikes under  1915g
Output (English): (C)