alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. MARCUS DIETER FELDER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No s
. 23

- 596 23

- 597 D.C. No s
. 3:14

- cr - 00536

- MMC

- 1

3:19

- cr - 00256

- MMC

- 1 MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney , District Judge , Presiding
Submitted May 29, 2024 **
Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Marcus Dieter Felder challenges a special condition of supervised rel ease that was imposed following his con viction s for aggravated identity theft, fraudulent use of unauthorized access devices, effecting

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 5 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 596 & 23

- 597

transactions with access devices issued to other person s , contempt of court , and failure to appear for sentencing, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 401, 102 8A , 1029 , and 3146 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

. Felder contends that the district court erroneously imposed a special condition of supervised release that requires him to abstain from alcohol because
he ha s no history of alcohol abuse , his offenses were not alcohol

- related , and the
district court did not find that alcohol use is related to drug abuse

. The parties dispute whether Felder waived this claim by failing to raise it in his first appeal. We need not resolve this dispute because , even if the claim is merely forfeited , the
district court did not plainly err in imposing the condition. See United States v.
Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 733

- 35 (1993). The presentence report shows, and Felder
admitted , that his offense conduct and criminal history were linked to his methamphetamine addiction

. Contrary to Felder’s argument, the alcohol abstention condition is reasonably related to the goals of rehabilitation and protection of the public, even in the absence of any indication of alcohol addiction , because of the tie between drug and alcohol abuse. See United States v. Vega , 545 F.3d 743, 74 7

- 4 8 (9th Cir. 2008) . At the very least , any error by the district court
in imposing the alcohol a bstention condition was not “obvious” under existing law.
See Olano , 507 U.S. at 734.
AFFIRMED.
# C_2007096EN.01003701.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission

(Case T-384/06 R)

(Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Lack of urgency)

(2007/C 96/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, West Midlands, United Kingdom) and International Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented by: M. Clough and A. Aldred, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Article 2(c) and (d) of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) and, in particular, for dispensation from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee imposed by the Commission's letter of 4 October 2006 notifying the applicants of the decision

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2014143EN.01000701.xml

| 13.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/7

---

Notice to importers

Imports of tuna from Colombia and El Salvador into the EU

2014/C 143/06

By a notice to importers published in the Official Journal C 132 of 21.5.2010, p. 15, the Commission informed EU traders presenting documentary evidence of origin in order to benefit from preferential treatment for canned tuna and frozen tuna loins of HS subheading 1604 14 imported from Colombia and El Salvador to take all necessary precautions, since the release of the goods in question for free circulation could give rise to a customs debt and lead to fraud against the EU’s financial interests.

Certain measures to remedy this situation have meanwhile been introduced.

In addition, the GSP rules of origin rules have been modified and relaxed in particular for fishery products. The crew composition requirement, whose breach was one of the reasons which gave rise to the above publication, is no longer applicable.

Therefore, the notice to importers published in the Official Journal C 132 of 21.5.2010, p. 15 is hereby withdrawn.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00249-CV

Michael Franzak, Appellant

v.

Cielo Multi Family LLC d/b/a Cielo Apartments, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-15-002921, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Michael Franzak filed his notice of appeal on April 30, 2015. The record

was completed on July 10, 2015, making appellant’s brief due on August 9, 2010. See Tex. R. App.

P. 38.6(a). On August 25, we sent appellant notice that his brief was overdue, requesting a response

by September 4. To date, appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise responded to our notice. We

therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: September 30, 2015
### §2248. Seal of the Farm Credit Administration

The Farm Credit Administration shall have a seal, as adopted by the Board, which shall be judicially noted.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.13, formerly §5.14, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 620; renumbered §5.13 and amended Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §201(3), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1690.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5.13 of Pub. L. 92–181 was classified to section 2247 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §201(2), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1690.

#### Amendments

1985—Pub. L. 99–205 substituted "Board" for "Governor".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–205 effective thirty days after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 401 of Pub. L. 99–205, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form10-K/A of Vital Images, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22,2004 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Jay D. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Periodic Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | November 22, 2004  |   | /s/ Jay D. Miller |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|-------------------|
|   | Jay D. Miller           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Vital Images, Inc.      |

 

1

----
# C_2014101EN.01000401.xml

| 5.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/4

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2014/C 101/04)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 17.3.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 17.3.2014-30.6.2014 |
| Member State | European Union (all Member States) |
| Stock or Group of stocks | RED/N3M |
| Species | Redfish (Sebastes spp) |
| Zone | NAFO 3M |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 03/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

17.3.2014

Duration

17.3.2014-30.6.2014

Member State

European Union (all Member States)

Stock or Group of stocks

RED/N3M

Species

Redfish (Sebastes spp)

Sebastes

Zone

NAFO 3M

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

03/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2007082EN.01005501.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 — Neirinck v Commission

(Case F-84/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Temporary staff - Admissibility - Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Alleged promise to recruit)

(2007/C 82/115)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Wineke Neirinck (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

An application for damages seeking compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been employed as a member of the temporary staff following an alleged error on the part of the defendant's administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 29 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-334/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
# C_2007069EN.01001601.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/16

---

Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-81/07)

(2007/C 69/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson)

Applicant:

Defendant: the Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by not developing, approving and implementing waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not developing, approving and implementing waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1);

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2000/59/EC into national law expired on 28 December 2000.

---

(1)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

1

---
#### § 580.3 Who may appear before the Commission?

In any appellate proceeding under parts 582 through 585 of this subchapter, a party or limited participant may appear in person or by an attorney or other authorized representative. An attorney must be in good standing and admitted to practice before any Court of the United States, the District of Columbia, any tribal court, or the highest court of any state, territory, or possession of the United States. Any person appearing as an attorney or authorized representative shall file with the Commission a written notice of appearance. The notice must state his or her name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, email address, if any, and the name and address of the person or entity on whose behalf he or she appears.
### [§856a. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVIII, §5301(b), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2920]

Section, added Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title V, §581(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1759, related to sentence of confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
- Home
- Newsroom

# Speeches

# Pagination

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  ››› 
-  »Last »
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Joel M. Ellis,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Nina B. Varley,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

Argued June 4

decided June 4, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 11, 2014 517920 

________________________________

In the Matter of DONTIE S. 

MITCHELL, 

Petitioner, 

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner 

of Corrections and Community

Supervision, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 4, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Dontie S. Mitchell, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. 

Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging a tier III

prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of

possession of contraband, smuggling and possession of an item in

an unauthorized area. The Attorney General has informed this

Court that the determination at issue has been administratively

reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from

petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has

been returned to his inmate account; thus, this proceeding is

dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ames v Gutwein, 76 AD3d 1163
-2- 517920 

[2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
ACCEPTED14-14-01009-CVFOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALSHOUSTON, TEXAS1/7/2015 12:17:50 PMCHRISTOPHER PRINECLERK
### [§2503. Renumbered §4813]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2503, added Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title VIII, §821(b)(1)(B), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2016; amended Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VIII, §842(a), (b), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1514, 1515; Pub. L. 102–25, title VII, §701(f)(4), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 115; Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title X, §1052(32), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2501, established defense industrial base office, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–484, §4202(a).
#### § 101.1 Applicability.

When used in parts 101 through 117 of this subchapter, the meaning of the words and phrases listed shall be as defined in this part.
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

 

WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C7, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 

2012-C7 (the “Trust”)

 

I,William A. Clarkson, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as specialservicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to RBSCommercial FundingInc., the Depositor, each Other Depositor and their respective officers,directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will relyupon this certification, that:

 

1.       I (or ServicingOfficers under my supervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’sactivities during that proportion of the preceding year, from January 1 toSeptember 20, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) and the Certifying Servicer’sperformance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2.      To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.  

 

 

Date:February 28, 2019

 

TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

 

By:/s/ William A. Clarkson

Name:William A. Clarkson

Title:Authorized Signatory

 

 

280 ParkAvenue, New York, NY 10017

T212.883.2800   F 212.883.2560

Einfo@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
(39 South. 442.)

No. 15,849.

#### STATE v. ZUMMO. Ex parte ZUMMO.

(Oct. 28, 1905.)

1. Habeas Corpus — Refusal of Bail — Review.

The Supreme Court will interfere when the criminal court has refused to admit a defendant to bail only in case it be evident that a prejudicial error has been committed.

2. Same — Grounds of Defense.

Grounds of defense are confined to the trial. They are not controlling or conclusive, one way or the other, in considering questions which may arise prior to trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Application of Vito Zummo for writ of habeas corpus.

Denied.

Chandler Clement Luzenberg, for applicant.

BREAUX, C. J.

The defendant asks to be released on bail. He is charged with having taken the life of John Schaub on the 26th day of July, 1905.

A preliminary examination was held before the first city criminal court on the 16th day of October, 1905, and defendant was committed to the criminal district court without the benefit of bail.

He applied to the criminal district court for his release on bail. The court refused to grant the application.

The petition for the writ of habeas corpus is grounded upon the evidence taken before the committing magistrate, and the contention is that the proof of the crime is not evident nor the presumption great.

The criminal court unquestionably had jurisdiction, and no other court should hasten to interfere.

The refusal to admit the defendant to bail is prima facie correct, and should remain at least until it appears that it was manifestly erroneous. The onus is with de< fendant.

*242The case is following the usual course, and no unusual delay is urged.

Those authorized to weigh this evidence, and upon whom the responsibility rests to act upon the accusation, will doubtless act as promptly as possible and judiciously.

We have considered the court’s refusal alone. The judge of the trial court is in a position to know whether an immediate investigation, or one within reasonable time, will be had. The question to be then considered is separate and independent of the questions which arise on an application to bond. The defendant will have ample opportunity to present all questions of law which may enter into the nature of the crime charged. He therefore is not prejudiced in that respect by the refusal of his application. The trend of the decisions beginning with State v. McColley, ante, p. 403, 39 South. 81, has been not to interfere after the district court has acted, unless it clearly appears that the defendant is entitled to bail.

We think we should adhere to these decisions, and for that reason the refusal of the judge of the criminal district court is maintained, and the defendant’s petition is dismissed.
#### § 700.719 Establishment of grazing fees.

The Commissioner may establish a minimum acceptable grazing fee per SUYL. The Commissioner may consult with the Tribe prior to establishing fees.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CEO CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC §1350, as adopted), Joel A. Ronning, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Digital River, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

** **

**1.    **TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004,and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and

** **

**2.    **Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe periods presented therein.

** **

**In Witness Whereof**,the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 7th day of May2004.

 
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Joel A. Ronning      |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |                     |
|   |   |   |   | Joel A. Ronning          |
|   |   |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Digital River, Inc. and will be retained by DigitalRiver, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----