alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 201.72 Notice.

Notice of any matter which may result in or involves the institution of a formal proceeding will be given by publication in the Federal Register in sufficient detail and in sufficient time to apprise interested persons of the nature of the issues to be heard and to allow for an opportunity to file petitions for leave to intervene.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6470** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ARMANDO JIMENEZ TAGLE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Max O. Cogburn , Jr., District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00295

- MOC

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : August 18, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Armando Jimenez Tagle, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Armando Jimenez Tagle appeals the district court ’ s order denying without prejudice his motion to dismiss his criminal indictment, conviction , and sentence for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the r ecord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Tagle , No. 3:12

- cr - 00295

- MOC

- DCK

- 1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARIO VALENZUELA-MORALES,

a.k.a. Mario Higuera-Valenzuela, a.k.a.

Martin Valenzuela Verdugo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10157

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01961-GMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Karen E. Schreier, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted February 18, 2014*** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Mario Valenzuela-Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment and

FILED

FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Court for the

District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
challenges the 46-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised

release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Valenzuela-Morales contends that the district court erred by failing to

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his mitigation arguments

and by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the custodial sentence and

supervised-release term. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects

that the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, adequately

addressed Valenzuela-Morales’s mitigation arguments, and provided sufficient

reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court’s reasoning for imposing

the supervised-release term is apparent from the record. See id. at 992

(“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the

record as a whole.”).

Valenzuela-Morales also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Valenzuela-Morales’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

2 13-10157
The custodial sentence and supervised-release term are substantively reasonable in

light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including Valenzuela-Morales’s criminal and immigration history. See id.;

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.

Finally, Valenzuela-Morales contends that the indictment was defective

because it did not allege his predicate conviction. Our case law forecloses this

contention. See United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, 567 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir.

2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-10157
§ 194.10-10 Integral magazine construction. ( a ) Magazines shall be of permanent watertight construction. Bulkheads and decks, including the deck overhead, which are common with storerooms or workshops shall be of A-15 construction as defined by § 72.05-10 of Subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter. Flush construction shall be employed where practicable.
( b ) Where the shell or unsheathed weather decks form boundaries of the magazine spaces suitable approved incombustible thermal insulation shall be provided to prevent condensation of moisture.
( c ) Where a tank top forms the magazine deck it shall be insulated with an approved deck covering to prevent condensation of moisture. Tank top manholes shall not be installed in magazines.
( d ) Light fixtures shall be of an approved type equipped with globes and guards. Control of the lighting system shall be from a location external to the magazine. An indicator light shall be provided at the switch location to indicate when the lighting circuits are energized. Other electrical equipment and wiring shall not be installed within or pass through the magazine. Electrical cables enclosed in a watertight trunk are permitted.
( e ) Piping, other than fresh or salt water service and drainage system, shall not be routed through magazines except as required for the magazines themselves. Other piping systems enclosed in a watertight trunk are permitted.
( f ) Access doors for the magazine, or magazine groups, shall be of substantial watertight construction and be provided with means whereby they may be securely locked.
( g ) Racks, stanchions, battens, and other devices shall be installed to provide rigid and safe stowage of explosives in their approved shipping containers with a minimum of dunnage.
( h ) Decks shall be covered with a permanent nonslip nonspark covering.
#### § 31.15-1 Officers and crews—TB/ALL.

The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), that inspects the vessel enters on the Certificate of Inspection (COI) for each tank vessel the complement of officers and crew that are required by statute and regulation and that in the judgment of the OCMI are necessary for its safe operation. The OCMI may change the complement from time to time by endorsement to the COI for changes in conditions of employment.

[CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17155, Apr. 4, 1995]
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### JOSEPH DOBRENSKI, PETITIONER, v. I. M. KONIGSBERG, RESPONDENT.

Eor the petitioner, *Brenner & Kresch.*

For the respondent, *McCa/rter.& English.*

*%*# ijt j|{ ^ sH #

Petitioner alleges that he sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent on October 19th, 1928. He says that at the time he was employed as a laborer, and while so engaged was carrying a large timber with the help of another man when the timber fell upon the petitioner’s foot. He alleges that as a result of the said accident he sustained a permanent injury to the foot which has affected the leg and arm. He further alleges that he is suffering from pains throughout his entire system and finds it difficult to get out of bed and almost impossible to sit down. He further alleges that his nerves are continually on edge and that his entire body keeps shaking nervously, and that he has sustained serious permanent injury.

The respondent denies that there is any permanent injury to the foot of the petitioner or that the petitioner’s leg and arm has been affected, or that the petitioner is suffering with pain throughout his system or that his nerves are continually on edge or that his body keeps shaking nervously, and the respondent denies that the petitioner has suffered any serious permanent disability, but the respondent takes all injuries, diseases, and any and all other conditions of the *1127petitioner into consideration, including any and all ultimate results of any and all of the various diseases, injuries and conditions of the petitioner, and basing the settlement not only on petitioner’s present condition but on any and all developments in his condition of any nature whatsoever which may be by him or by doctors alleged to be results of his alleged accident, either directly or by way of aggravation, is willing to settle the entire matter for fifty per cent, disability of the great toe or fifteen weeks at the rate of $16 a week, and twelve weeks’ temporary disability at the rate of $16 a week. Eespondent also agrees to pay a counsel fee of $100 awarded to the attorney for the petitioner, and further agrees to pay $45 to the petitioner for his medical expenses of any kind whatsoever.

Erom the facts stipulated and the report of the physicians the settlement is fair to both parties and is approved by this court upon the distinct understanding of the petitioner and his attorney and the respondent and his attorney that a fundamental element of the settlement is the fact that any future or further disturbance resulting in an increase of disability to the petitioner are taken into consideration and are in a large measure the reason for the respondent’s willingness to agree to this settlement.

$$$$$$$

Charles E. Corbin, *Deputy Commissioner.*
#### § 201.62 Notice of proposed rule making.

After receipt of petitions and any answers thereto described in § 201.61, or upon its own initiative, the Administration may, in its discretion, direct that notice thereof be published in the Federal Register unless all persons subject thereto are named and either are personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. Except where publication of notice of proposed rule making and public hearing is required by statute, this section shall not apply to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, organization rules, rules of procedure, or practice of the Administration, or amendments thereto, or any situation in which the Administration for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
# C_2013225EN.01005702.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/57

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

(Case C-213/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/113

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

1

---
# C_2012039EN.01001002.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL v Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

(Case C-591/11)

(2012/C 39/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL

Other parties: Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

---
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.10 Page 10 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.11 Page 11 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.12 Page 12 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.13 Page 13 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.14 Page 14 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.15 Page 15 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.16 Page 16 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.17 Page 17 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.18 Page 18 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.19 Page 19 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.20 Page 20 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.21 Page 21 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.22 Page 22 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.23 Page 23 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.24 Page 24 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.25 Page 25 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.26 Page 26 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.27 Page 27 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.28 Page 28 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.29 Page 29 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.30 Page 30 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.31 Page 31 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.32 Page 32 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.33 Page 33 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.34 Page 34 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.35 Page 35 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.36 Page 36 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.37 Page 37 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.38 Page 38 of 39
Case 2:14-mj-30216-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 05/02/14 PageID.39 Page 39 of 39
| (1) | The      Report      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for      the period covered by theReport. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November      9, 2009 | /s/ Gilbert J. Pomar,III                   |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                   | Gilbert      J. Pomar, III                 |
|                                   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                   |                                       |
| Date:  November      9, 2009 | /s/ Valerie A. Kendall                     |
|                                   | Valerie      A. Kendall                    |
|                                   | Executive      Vice President              |
|                                   | and      Chief Financial Officer           |

----
#### Harlo Hakes, *Appellant, v.*John W. Roberts, Respondent.

Order reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Dwight, J.
#### William Neville, *Respondent, v.*Schuyler Steam Towboat Line, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Dykman, *A.;*

Gilbert, J., not sitting.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.935 Opening of tanks and cargo sampling. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the master shall ensure that all cargo tank hatches, ullage openings, and tank cleaning openings are tightly closed at all times.
( b ) The master may not authorize the opening of a cargo tank, except: ( 1 ) To clean a tank;
( 2 ) To transfer a cargo that Table 1 allows in a containment system having an open gauging system;
( 3 ) To sample a cargo that Table 1 allows in a containment system having an open gauging system; or
( 4 ) To sample a cargo that Table 1 allows in a containment system having a restricted gauging system if: ( i ) The tank is not being filled during sampling;
( ii ) The vent system has relieved any pressure in the tank;
( iii ) The person sampling the cargo wears the protective clothing required during cargo transfer; and
( iv ) The tank is closed tightly following sampling.
( c ) The master shall make sure that cargoes requiring closed gauging are sampled only through the controlled sampling arrangement required by § 153.404(d).
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21210, May 17, 1982]
#### Bank of Batavia, *Respondent, v.*Andrew Forward, *Appellant,*Impleaded, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
# C_2013225EN.01004401.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/44

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp.

(Case C-260/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark Swift GTi - Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: S. Risthaus, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Suzuki Motor Corp.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp. — Word sign SWIFT GTi — Likelihood of confusion with the word mark GTI — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Volkswagen

OHIM

Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

| 2. | Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs of these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
# C_2012032EN.01002702.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/27

---

Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)

(Case T-584/11)

2012/C 32/57

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 2262/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 2262/2010-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: word mark ‘ATLAS TRANSPORT’ for goods in Class 39.

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Alfred Hartmann.

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for revocation.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Rule 40(5), in conjunction with Rule 22, of Implementing Regulation No 2868/95 due to an erroneous assessment of the evidence; infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009, since, in its literal interpretation, the defendant addressed the issue alone as to whether there had been a legitimate use of the mark for the corresponding services; infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, since, in determining the meaning of the term ‘transport’, the defendant referred merely to one source and thus evaluated that term without due care and insufficiently; infringement of Article 75, sentence 1, of Regulation No 207/2009, since the defendant failed to clearly reason its legal opinion; infringement of Article 75, sentence 2, and Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as a result of a breach of the right to be heard.

Pleas in law:

---