alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 11-13254 

 

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00117-TCB

COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AKANTHOS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

ARIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LTD.,

AQR ABSOLUTE RETURN MASTER ACCOUNT, L.P., 

CC ARBITRAGE, LTD., 

CNH CA MASTER ACCOUNT, L.P., et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Georgia

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

(October 19, 2012)

 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL,

MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT: 

Case: 11-13254 Date Filed: 10/19/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
The decision of the district court is affirmed by an evenly divided court. 

The opinion of the panel remains vacated. United States v. Geders, 585 F.2d

1303, 1306 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (“[T]he court en banc is evenly divided;

therefore the judgment . . . of the district court is affirmed by operation of law.”);1

see id. (indicating that, if district court judgment is affirmed by operation of law,

the panel opinion remains vacated); see also Reshard v. Britt, 839 F.2d 1499 (11th

Cir. 1988); United States v. Sigma, Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir.

2002) (en banc) (noting that when panel opinions are vacated they “are officially

gone,” and “are void,” and none of the statements made in them “has any

remaining force and cannot be considered to express the view of this Court.”).

AFFIRMED.

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

1

adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before

October 1, 1981.

2

Case: 11-13254 Date Filed: 10/19/2012 Page: 2 of 2
33447.

#### WENTWORTH v. MIDDLETON et al.

Jordan, Justice.

This appeal arises from a habeas corpus action involving the custody of a three-year-old boy.

Debora Wentworth, the natural mother of the child, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of the child from Benjamin and Catherine Middleton. The Middletons have maintained custody of the child for two years pursuant to a contract in which appellant released her parental rights. After an evidentiary hearing, the habeas judge found that Debora Wentworth had lost parental control of the child and that the best interests of the child would be served by continuing its custody with the Middletons. Wentworth appeals, alleging that the trial judge abused his discretion in making findings of fact and conclusions of law which were unsupported by the evidence and in denying her *44petition.

Submitted March 31, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*John R. Ferrelle,*for appellant.

*Benjamin Smith,*for appellees.

The trial court, upon hearing a writ of habeas corpus for the detention of a child, is vested with a discretion in determining to whom its custody shall be given. Such discretion should be governed by the rules of law, and be exercised in favor of the party having the prima facife legal right to custody of the child unless the evidence shows that such person has lost the right to custody through one of the ways recognized in Code §§ 74-108, 74-109, and 74-110, or through unfitness. *Williams v. Ferrell,*231 Ga. 470 (202 SE2d 427) (1973); *Perkins v. Courson,*219 Ga. 611 (135 SE2d 388) (1964).

The trial court found in this case that between these parties the mother had lost her right to custody by voluntarily releasing her parental rights to the appellees. Code § 74-108 (1). Evidence was properly admitted which supports this decision, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

----

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Thomas Henry Glocer, Chief Executive of Reuters Group PLC (the “Company”) hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

a) The Company’s Annual Reporton Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Form 20-F”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

b) The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

| Dated: 17 March 2006 |   | By /s/ Thomas H. Glocer         |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                 |   |                            |
|                 |   | Thomas H. GlocerChief Executive |

 

----
No. 55542.

#### Maltbie Chemical Co. *v.*United States,

protest 168351-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
----

Exhibit 32.2

|   | · | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | · | information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |

|   |                                                                                                    |                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                    | /s/      Tamara Augustyn |
|   | Tamara      AugustynVice      President, Finance, Chief Accountant andPrincipal      Accounting Officer |
# C_2012217EN.01001203.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-256/12)

2012/C 217/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
No. 96-7835.

#### Pielech et al. *v.*Massasoit Greyhound, Inc.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
No. 96-7886.

#### Hill *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7676

VIELKA DUDLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7857

VIELKA DUDLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-88-11-A)

Submitted: April 14, 1998

Decided: May 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vielka Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Dean Kromberg, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Vielka Dudley appeals from the district court's orders

denying her motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) for the return of

property seized from her as part of a criminal investigation and denying her motions for reconsideration.* The record shows that Dudley's

property was seized by the United States Customs Service on December 20, 1987. Dudley did not bring the instant claim until September

5, 1997. The district court found that Dudley's claim was barred by

the six-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)

(1994).

A postconviction motion for return of property seized as part of a

criminal investigation brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) is an

equitable civil action. See United States v. Garcia, 65 F.3d 17, 20-21

(4th Cir. 1995). Such an action is subject to the general six-year statute of limitations for suits brought against the United States. See 28

U.S.C. § 2401(a). Dudley's cause of action accrued on December 20,

1987, the date her property was seized. Because Dudley's claim was

not filed until 1997, almost ten years after the seizure, her claim is

barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Dudley's

claim as barred by limitations and the court's denial of Dudley's

motions for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-

_________________________________________________________________

*Dudley also appealed from the district court order denying her

motion for postconviction relief. Her appeals were consolidated, and in

her informal brief, Dudley failed to raise any issues as to the denial of

her motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, this claim has been

waived. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Thus, we affirm the district court's

order as to this claim.

 2
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
# C_2012303EN.01002001.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 8 August 2012 — X BV, other party: Minister van Financiën

(Case C-380/12)

2012/C 303/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X BV

Appellant:

Other party: Minister van Financiën

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the expression ‘eliminating the impurities’ in HS Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Harmonised System also cover the stripping of a chemical product in a crude state of certain chemical particles included therein through natural circumstances, and where the elimination thereof occurs with a view to the strengthening of (specific) natural properties of the mineral product which had previously decreased in strength due to those natural circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the expression ‘eliminating the impurities’ in HS Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Harmonised System also cover the stripping of a chemical product in a crude state of certain chemical particles included therein through natural circumstances, and where the elimination thereof occurs with a view to the strengthening of (specific) natural properties of the mineral product which had previously decreased in strength due to those natural circumstances?

| 2. | If, on the basis of the answer to the question raised in 1 above, it can be established that the elimination of impurities within the meaning of HS Note 1 to Chapter 25 has occurred, on the basis of what criteria should an assessment then be made as to whether an extracted mineral product such as decolorising earth, after being washed successively with sulphuric acid and water, can remain classified under heading 2508 40 00 of the CN on the basis of the aforementioned Note, and should not rather be regarded as a chemical product as referred to in Chapter 38 of the HS? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If, on the basis of the answer to the question raised in 1 above, it can be established that the elimination of impurities within the meaning of HS Note 1 to Chapter 25 has occurred, on the basis of what criteria should an assessment then be made as to whether an extracted mineral product such as decolorising earth, after being washed successively with sulphuric acid and water, can remain classified under heading 2508 40 00 of the CN on the basis of the aforementioned Note, and should not rather be regarded as a chemical product as referred to in Chapter 38 of the HS?

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of May 14, 2007:

Closed Meetings will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 2 p.m. and Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 9:45 a.m.
      ( print page 26853)    
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings. 

Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 15, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

An adjudicatory matter; and 

Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 17, 2007 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature;

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

May 8, 2007. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9181 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ERIC JOHN MEISNER, a.k.a. Lewis

Guarnieri,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-10008

D.C. No. CR-04-01073-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2011** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Eric John Meisner appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or

more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

NOV 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-10008

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Meisner contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, Meisner claims that he did not understand

the nature of the appellate and post-conviction rights he was giving up at the time

he entered the guilty plea, due to head trauma suffered both as a child and while in

pretrial detention. In light of the district court’s factual finding that Meisner

understood that he was giving up certain rights when he entered his guilty plea, we

conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in determining that he failed to show a

fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B);

United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2008).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

AFFIRMED.
[Put
        Agreement Execution Page]

       

      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Put Agreement
        as of
        the date and year first above written.

       

      
        	
                 

              	
                COMPANY:

                SINO-GLOBAL
                  SHIPPING AMERICA, LTD.

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                By:
                  /s/
                  Cao
                  Lei                                                         
                  

              
	
                 

              	
                Name:
                  Cao Lei

              
	
                 

              	
                Title:   
                  CEO

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                BUYER:

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                /s/ Richard
                  E.
                  Watkins                                            
                  

              
	
                 

              	
                RICHARD
                  E. WATKINS, as joint tenant with

              
	
                 

              	
                SHARON
                  J. WATKINS

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                /s/ Sharon
                  J.
                  Watkins                                                
                  

              
	
                 

              	
                
                  SHARON
                    J. WATKINS, as joint tenant with 

                

              
	
                 

              	
                RICHARD
                  E. WATKINS

              


      

       

       

      


    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        5
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1638 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 

study of P.S. 103 in West Baltimore, Maryland, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 3, 2011 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resource study of P.S. 103 in West Baltimore, 

Maryland, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall’s 

5 Elementary School Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1638 IS

1 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

2 means P.S. 103, the public school located in West 

3 Baltimore, Maryland, which Thurgood Marshall at4 tended as a youth. 

5 SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

6 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a special 

7 resource study of the study area. 

8 (b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under sub9 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

10 (1) evaluate the national significance of the 

11 study area; 

12 (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 

13 designating the study area as a unit of the National 

14 Park System; 

15 (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 

16 protection, and interpretation of the study area by 

17 the Federal Government, State or local government 

18 entities, or private and nonprofit organizations; 

19 (4) consult with interested Federal agencies, 

20 State or local governmental entities, private and 

21 nonprofit organizations, or any other interested indi22 viduals; 

23 (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal ac24 quisition, development, interpretation, operation, and 

25 maintenance associated with the alternatives; and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1638 IS

1 (6) identify any authorities that would compel 

2 or permit the Secretary to influence local land use 

3 decisions under the alternatives. 

4 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under 

5 subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with sec6 tion 8 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5). 

7 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

8 on which funds are first made available to carry out the 

9 study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to 

10 the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep11 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

12 Resources of the Senate a report that describes— 

13 (1) the results of the study; and 

14 (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the 

15 Secretary. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Carolyn WILLIAMS et al v. NORTHGATE HOSPITAL d/b/a Sabine Medical Center.

No. 98-CC-2931.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

IN RE: Northgate Hospital d/b/a; Sabine Medical Center; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, Number 48351; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number W98-1477.

Granted. Case remanded to court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.