alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Toney A. SCHLOSS; Stuart Schloss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William R. ABEY, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael Lewis, Defendant.

No. 16-2217

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 7, 2017

Robert B. Schulman, Leslie D. Hersh-field, Eric Radz, SCHULMAN, HERSH-FIELD & GILDEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Ronald M. Levitan, Phillip M. Pickus, Assistant Attorneys General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Toney A. Schloss and Stuart Schloss appeal the district court’s order denying relief on them 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record with regard to Toney Schloss’ claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of these claims for the reasons stated by the district court. *Schloss v.*Abey, No. 1:15-cv-01938-JFM, 2016 WL 1451246 (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2016).

The district court denied relief on Stuart Schloss’ sole claim, for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law, on two independent grounds: failure to prove extreme and outrageous conduct, and failure to demonstrate severe emotional harm. Because Stuart Schloss’ opening brief does not address the second ground for the district court’s decision, he has abandoned this claim on appeal. *See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder,*714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013).

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment in its entirety. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001005732
<NAME> HORSESHOE GAMING, L.L.C.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          69,828
<SECURITIES>                                    61,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,778<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      1,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,422
<PP&E>                                         184,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,308
<BONDS>                                        231,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,694
<SALES>                                         10,459<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               256,442
<CGS>                                           11,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,271
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE-TRADE ARE REPORTED NET OF ALLOWANCES FOR DOUBTFUL
ACCOUNTS IN THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION.
<F2>NET SALES ARE REPORTED NET OF PROMOTIONAL ALLOWANCES APPLICABLE TO TANGIBLE
ITEMS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0826 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0826

**2001/826/EC: Commission Decision of 23 November 2001 amending Decision 97/365/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of meat products (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 3701) **

*
Official Journal L 308 , 27/11/2001 P. 0037 - 0038 *

Commission Decision

of 23 November 2001

amending Decision 97/365/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of meat products

(notified under document number C(2001) 3701)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/826/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EEC on 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bi-valve molluscs(1), as last amended by Council Decision 2001/4/EC(2) and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 97/222/EC(3) draws up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products.

(2) For the countries on that list the animal health and veterinary certification requirements for importation of meat products have been laid down in Commission Decision 97/221/EC(4).

(3) Provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of products prepared from meat of bovine animals, swine, equidae and sheep and goats have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/365/EC(5).

(4) The Commission has carried out a mission to Lithuania to inspect meat product establishments and recommended approval of certain establishments from which Member States may authorise imports of meat products into the Community, provided certain guarantees were received from the competent authority of Lithuania.

(5) The Commission has received from Lithuania a list of meat product establishments, with guarantees that they fully meet the appropriate Community health requirements and that should an establishment fail to do so, its export activities to the European Community would be suspended.

(6) A provisional list of establishments producing meat products may be drawn up in respect of Lithuania.

(7) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text in the Annex to this Decision is added in the Annex to Commission Decision 97/365/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 November 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 89, 4.4.1997, p. 39.

(4) OJ L 89, 4.4.1997, p. 32.

(5) OJ L 154, 12.6.1997, p. 41.

ANNEX

LITHUANIA

>TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy ANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16146 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 7, 2017)

James C. Stuchell, R. Brian Tanner, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, Nancy Greenwood, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jimmy Anfield, Pro Se

Before MARCUS, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Anfield appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his motion to reduce sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

As an initial matter, the government argues that we should dismiss the appeal because the motion for reconsideration was untimely and, therefore, the appeal of its denial was also untimely. Although An-field’s appeal is untimely for the denial of his initial § 3582(c)(2) motion, we do not dismiss his appeal on his motion for reconsideration; he filed his notice of appeal within 14 days of the district court denying it.

About the substance of the appeal, An-field argues that the district court abused its discretion because it based the denial on erroneous facts—to be specific, that he had already received a sentence reduction to 137 months’ imprisonment and that he was still serving a sentence for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His argument is incorrect. Assuming arguendo that the district court had jurisdiction to hear his untimely motion (i) the district court did not find that the total sentence had already been reduced; and (ii) the district court correctly concluded that his guideline range was controlled by the offense level for his § 922(g)(1) conviction.

To explain in more detail, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to reconsider. First, contrary to Anfield’s argument on appeal, the district court found that his guideline range had been reduced to 110 to 137 months, not that his total sentence had been reduced to 137 months. Second, Amendment 782 did not change Anfield’s guideline range. Although he may have completed the 120-month custodial term originally imposed for the firearm offense, the district court was required to apply the amendment as if it had applied on the day he was sentenced and leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.

*645So, we affirm the denial of Anfield’s motion to reconsider the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wesley Shea WARD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11034 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Wesley Shea Ward, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Wesley Shea Ward has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ward has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate *365review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7622

CHARLES LINWOOD PANNELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98-

1521-MJG)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Linwood Pannell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Linwood Pannell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Pannell v. Corcoran, No.

CA-98-1521-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### IN RE: Kahtan BAYATI, Debtor, *868Kahtan Bayati, Appellant, v. William Musharbash; et al., Appellees.

No. 15-60073

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Kahtan Bayati, Pro Se

Bahram Madaen, Esquire, Law Offices of Madaen, Huntington Beach, CA, for Ap-pellees William Musharbash, Town Square M. Properties, LLC

Nancy K. Curry, Chapter 13 Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Nancy K, Curry

UST — United States Trustee, Los Ange-les, UST — United States Trustee, Los An-geles, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee UST — United States Trustee, Los Angeles

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kahtan Bayati appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting Town Square M Properties LLC’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and denying Bayati’s motion for reconsideration. We review de novo the question of mootness. *Suter v. Goedert,*504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We dismiss.

During the pendency of this appeal, the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing Bayati’s bankruptcy case, which Bayati appealed to the BAP. The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order and Bayati did not appeal the BAP’s judgment. We dismiss this appeal as moot because there is no longer any case or controversy and we lack power to grant any effective relief. *See*11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B); *Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca-Castaic, LLC (In re Castaic Partners II, LLC),*823 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2016) (“In a bankruptcy appeal, when the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed and that dismissal is allowed to become final, there is likely no longer any case or controversy....”); *Armel Laminates, Inc. v. Lomas & Nettleton Co. (In re Income Prop. Builders, Inc.),*699 F.2d 963, 964 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Once the bankruptcy was dismissed, a bankruptcy court no longer had power to order the stay or to award damages allegedly attributable to its vacation. A remand by us to the bankruptcy court would therefore be useless.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Bayati’s motion “to submit highlights of the oral argument in a short written form” (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0269 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0269

**2002/269/EC: Commission Decision of 8 April 2002 amending Decision 2001/574/EC establishing a common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene (notified under document number C(2002) 1244) **

*
Official Journal L 093 , 10/04/2002 P. 0006 - 0006 *

Commission Decision

of 8 April 2002

amending Decision 2001/574/EC establishing a common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene

(notified under document number C(2002) 1244)

(2002/269/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene(1), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Commission Decision 2001/574/EC(2) the product identified by the scientific name N-Ethyl-N-[2-(1-isobutoxyethoxy)ethyl]-4-(phenylazo)aniline (Solvent Yellow 124) was established as the common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene. In the Annex to that Decision, that marker was specified using a commercial name, the scientific name and the Identification according to the Colour Index. However, since use of the commercial name does not appear to be indispensable, the reference to that name should be deleted.

(2) In the interests of clarity, the Annex to Decision 2001/574/EC should therefore be replaced.

(3) The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Excise Duties,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2001/574/EC is replaced by the following:

"ANNEX

1. Scientific name:

N-Ethyl-N-[2-(1-isobutoxyethoxy)ethyl]-4-(phenylazo)aniline

2. Identification according to the Colour Index: Solvent Yellow 124."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 April 2002.

For the Commission

Frederik Bolkestein

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 46.

(2) OJ L 203, 28.7.2001, p. 20.
#### Carla Louise LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17322

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted on the Briefs June 12, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed June 30, 2017

Mark Ross Caldwell, Mark Caldwell, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jordan Dylan Goddard, Esquire, Assistant Regional Counsel, Michael Reid Tun-ick, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL,** District Judge.

*

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

**

**The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

*881MEMORANDUM ***

Carla Lyons (“Lyons”) appeals from the district court’s decision remanding for further proceedings in Lyons’ action for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We review the district court’s decision to remand for further proceedings for abuse of discretion, *Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Lyons disability insurance benefits upon concluding, at step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, that Lyons’ impairments were non-severe. The ALJ did not develop the record regarding steps three, four, and five. Given the lack of analysis beyond step two, we affirm the district court’s decision to remand to the ALJ for further administrative proceedings.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FOR THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,119
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    123,572
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          54,286
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            54,748
<LOANS>                                        183,011
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,262)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 401,565
<DEPOSITS>                                     232,274
<SHORT-TERM>                                   126,890
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,058
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 401,565
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,362
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,942
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   125
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,429
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,298
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,718
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,711
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 195
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,218
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,218
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.03
<LOANS-NON>                                        299
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    739
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               (1,243)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       66
<RECOVERIES>                                      (10)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (1,262)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (1,262)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EX-35 (d)

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

CMLTI 2006-FX1

Re:  The Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated and effective as of October 1,
     2006 (the "Agreement"), among Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., as
     Depositor, Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Opteum
     Financial Services, LLC, as Servicers, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master
     Servicer and as Trust Administrator, and U.S. Bank National Association, as
     Trustee

     I, Martin J. Levine, the Executive Vice President of Opteum Financial
Services LLC (the "Company"), pursuant to the Agreement, do hereby certify that:

     (1) A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and
including January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 and of the
Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;

     (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout such period.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
28th day of February 2007.


By: /s/ Martin J. Levine
Name:  Martin J. Levine
Title: Executive Vice President