alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50689 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DAVID OROZCO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 1838

- 4

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Orozco appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of pure methamphetamine. Orozco argues that the plea agreement is invalid because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In particular, he assert s that the plea agreement is procedurally unconscionable because the parties were in an unequal bargaining position during the plea negotiation process.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 5, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50689 Document: 00514417488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2018N o. 17

- 50689

2 He further contends that the plea agreement is substantive ly unconscionable because it is “grossly one sided.” Orozco maintains that he gave up numerous important rights and received “very little, if anything” in return. He thus argues that the plea agreement’s appellate waiver provision is unenforceable. Orozco also asserts that his 96

- month, within

- gu idelines sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Because Orozco did not challenge the validity of the plea agreement in the district court or attempt to withdraw his plea on grounds that the plea agreement was unconscionable, we review his claims under the plain error standard. See United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58

- 59 (2002). Our review of
the plea agreement reveals no clear or obvious error with respect to Orozco’s unconscionability arguments. See Pucke tt v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). He offers no other challenge to the waiver’s validity or its application. Thus, the waiver bars Orozco’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence

. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Case: 17-50689 Document: 00514417488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2018
§ 520.1 Scope and purpose. ( a ) *Scope.* The regulations of this part govern the publication of tariffs in automated systems by common carriers and conferences in the waterborne foreign commerce of the United States. They cover the transportation of property by such carriers, including through transportation with inland carriers. They implement the tariff publication requirements of 46 U.S.C. 40501-40503.
( b ) *Purpose.* The requirements of this part are intended to permit: ( 1 ) Shippers and other members of the public to obtain reliable and useful information concerning the rates and charges that will be assessed by common carriers and conferences for their transportation services;
( 2 ) Carriers and conferences to meet their publication requirements pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40501-40503;
( 3 ) The Commission to ensure that carrier tariff publications are accurate and accessible and to protect the public from violations by carriers of 46 U.S.C. 41101-41106; and
( 4 ) The Commission to review and monitor the activities of controlled carriers pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40701-40706.
[64 FR 11225, Mar. 8, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 50721, Oct. 1, 2009; 89 FR 29, Jan. 2, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          220
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 5,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                     64
<INVENTORY>                                     148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              6,291
<PP&E>                                        4,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               13,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,559
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         36
<OTHER-SE>                                    5,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 13,233
<SALES>                                      19,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             19,951
<CGS>                                        12,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                20,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,010)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,010)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.29)                           
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.29)                            
        


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.076-3 Applicability. Inflatable PFDs approved under this subpart may be used to meet the carriage requirements of 33 CFR 175.15 and 175.17 on the following types of vessels only: ( a ) Recreational vessels.
( b ) Uninspected recreational submersible vessels.
§ 39.2011 Vapor overpressure and vacuum protection—TB/ALL. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76697 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) The cargo tank venting system required by 46 CFR 32.55 must— ( 1 ) Be capable of discharging cargo vapor at the maximum transfer rate plus the vapor growth for the cargo such that the pressure in the vapor space of each tank connected to the vapor control system (VCS) does not exceed— ( i ) The maximum design working pressure for the tank; or
( ii ) If a spill valve or rupture disk is fitted, the pressure at which the device operates;
( 2 ) Relieve at a pressure corresponding to a pressure in the cargo tank vapor space not less than 1.0 pounds per square inch gauge (psig);
( 3 ) Prevent a vacuum, which generates in any tank connected to the vapor collection system during the withdrawal of cargo or vapor at maximum rates, in a cargo tank vapor space from exceeding the maximum design vacuum; and
( 4 ) Not relieve at a vacuum corresponding to a vacuum in the cargo tank vapor space between 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) (0 psig) and 14.2 psia (−0.5 psig).
( b ) Each pressure-vacuum relief valve must— ( 1 ) Be of a type approved under 46 CFR 162.017, for the pressure and vacuum relief setting desired;
( 2 ) Be tested for venting capacity in accordance with paragraph 1.5.1.3 of API 2000 (incorporated by reference, see 46 CFR 39.1005). The test must be carried out with a flame screen fitted at the vacuum relief opening and at the discharge opening if the pressure-vacuum relief valve is not designed to ensure a minimum vapor discharge velocity of 30 meters (98.4 feet) per second; and
( 3 ) If installed after July 23, 1991, have a mechanism to check that it operates freely and does not remain in the open position.
( c ) A liquid filled pressure-vacuum breaker may be used for vapor overpressure and vacuum protection if the vessel owner or operator obtains the prior written approval of the Commandant.
( d ) Vapor growth must be calculated following the Marine Safety Center guidelines available in Coast Guard VCS guidance at *http://homeport.uscg.mil ,* or as specifically approved in writing by the Commandant after consultation with the Marine Safety Center.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending March 8, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 389.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this part: *Administrator* means the Maritime Administrator.
*Applicant* means the offshore development person, entity, or company as identified to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement in its Development Production Plan (DPP) or Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD), which has applied to the Maritime Administration for a waiver.
*Classed as a launch barge by a recognized classification Society* means that the vessel holds a current classification document to be used as a launch barge by at least one of the following classification societies: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), Lloyd's Register (LR), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Det Norske Veritas (DNV) or Registro Italiano Navale (RINA).
*Coastwise-qualified vessel* means a vessel that has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12112.
*Coastwise Trade Laws* include: ( 1 ) The Coastwise Endorsement Provision of the Vessel Documentation Laws (46 U.S.C. 12112);
( 2 ) The Passenger Vessel Services Act, section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. 55103);
( 3 ) The Jones Act, section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 55102); and
( 4 ) Section 2(c) of the Shipping Act of 1916 (46 U.S.C. 50501).
*Foreign launch barge,* for the purpose of this part, means a non-coastwise-qualified launch barge that was built before December 31, 2000, and has a launch capacity of 12,000 long tons or more.
*Launch barge* means a vessel that is technically capable of transporting and, if needed, launching or installing an offshore drilling or production platform jacket, provided that a coastwise-qualified vessel may meet this definition even if it is not capable of launching such a platform jacket, and even if it requires the involvement of one or more other vessels in connection with the installation of such a platform jacket. A *long ton* equals 2,240 pounds.
*Platform jacket* refers to a single physical component and includes any type of offshore exploration, development, or production structure or component thereof, including platform jackets, tension leg, or SPAR platform superstructures (including the deck, drilling rig and support utilities, and supporting structure), hull (including vertical legs and connecting pontoons or vertical cylinder), tower and base sections of a platform jacket, jacket structures, and deck modules (known as “topsides”).
*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Maritime Administration.
#### § 185.364 Use of potentially hazardous items for commercial purposes.

On vessels described by 46 CFR 175.110(c), flammable items not otherwise covered by the regulations of this subchapter, such as rechargeable batteries, including lithium ion batteries utilized for commercial purposes, must be handled, stored, and operated in a way that mitigates the risk of hazardous conditions.

[USCG-2021-0306,86 FR 73172, Dec. 27, 2021]
# C_2011347EN.01003203.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/32

---

Order of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — GS v Parliament and Council

(Case T-149/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 - Right of the Member States to refuse the reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation - No direct concern - Inadmissible)

2011/C 347/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (Eigeltingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rësslein and A. Neergaard, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and M. Simm, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
§ 31.40-25 Exemption Certificate—T/ALL. ( a ) A tankship may be exempted by the Commandant from complying with certain requirements of the Convention under his administration upon request made in writing to him and transmitted via the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( b ) When an exemption is granted to a tankship by the Commandant under and in accordance with the Convention, an Exemption Certificate describing such exemption shall be issued through the appropriate Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, in addition to other required certificates.
#### § 502.251 Proof on award of reparation.

If many shipments or points of origin or destination are involved in a proceeding in which reparation is sought (See § 502.63), the Commission will determine in its decision the issues as to violations, injury to complainant, and right to reparation. If complainant is found entitled to reparation, the parties thereafter will be given an opportunity to agree or make proof respecting the shipments and pecuniary amount of reparation due before the order of the Commission awarding reparation is entered. In such cases, freight bills and other exhibits bearing on the details of all shipments, and the amount of reparation on each, need not be produced at the original hearing unless called for or needed to develop other pertinent facts. [Rule 251.]
#### § 380.20 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to prescribe the procedure to be followed by contractors for the retention and disposal of books, records, and accounts created and maintained by them under construction or operating-differential subsidy contracts with the Maritime Administration/Maritime Subsidy Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Administration”). The minimum retention periods prescribed herein govern only the Administration's requirements for the preservation of the hereinafter specified books, records, and accounts. The failure to describe a particular book, record, or account shall not exempt a contractor from retaining the particular book, record, or account, unless expressly so authorized by the Administration.

(Sec. 204(b), Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1114(b)); Pub. L. 97-31 (August 6, 1981); 49 CFR 1.66 (46 FR 47458, Sept. 28, 1981))

[48 FR 45560, Oct. 6, 1983]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2486]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 7, 2007, 8 a.m. to June 
7, 2007, 5 p.m. DoubleTree Hotel-Washington, DC, 1515 Rhode Island 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005 which was published in the Federal 
Register on May 9, 2007, 72 FR 26411-26412.
    The meeting will be held June 7, 2007, 8 a.m. to June 8, 2007, 5 
p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2486 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2421]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the President's Commission on Care for America's 
Returning Wounded Warriors

AGENCY: Department of Defense

ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee Sub Committee Meeting notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 
U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 
1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) Sec. Sec.  102-3.140 through 160, the Department of Defense 
announces the forthcoming sub committee meeting.
    Subcommittees of the Commission will conduct preparatory work 
meetings in the Chicago area to gather information, conduct research 
and analyze issues and facts in preparation for a meeting of the 
Commission. Pursuant to section 102-3.160(a) of 41 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), these subcommittee meetings are not open to the 
public, and the subcommittees are required to report their findings to 
the Commission for further deliberation. Locations include the DoD/VA 
combined Health Center at Naval Training Center Great Lakes. 
Additionally, the Sub Committees will visit public and private 
hospitals in the area for investigation of Centers of Excellence that 
apply to the Commission's Charter.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-2421 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# C_2012039EN.01002103.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/21

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-27/11) (1)

(2012/C 39/42)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---
Filed 11/18/15 P. v. Navacarmona CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OSCAR NAVACARMONA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B262356

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA099670)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Jesse I. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark S. Givens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

__________________________________
On July 12, 2014, appellant was involved in a hit-and-run incident. He had 

rear-ended another vehicle, and then attempted to drive away. The other driver 

pursued him, and appellant drove into a cul-de-sac. He escaped the cul-de-sac by 

running into the other vehicle. 

Appellant was charged with one count of hit-and-run driving (Veh. Code, 

§ 20002, subd. (a)), three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, a vehicle (Pen. 

Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of misdemeanor drug possession, and one 

count of felony vandalism. As part of a plea bargain, on December 16, 2014, 

appellant pled no contest to the drug possession and felony vandalism charges. 

The remaining charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced appellant to three 

years in county jail for the felony vandalism, and imposed various fines and fees. 

Appellant also was ordered to pay $12,009.64 in victim restitution. Appellant filed 

a timely notice of appeal. 

After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising 

no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On July 31, 2015, we advised appellant he 

had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument 

he wished this court to consider. No response was received. 

This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has 

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MANELLA, J. 

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

COLLINS, J.