alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00515

- CV

IN RE Kevin OLIVER

Origina l Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for stay on August

10, 2017

. The court has considered the petition and is of the opinion Relator is not entitled to

mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for

stay are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later da te.

It is so ORDERED on Augus t 10, 2017

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the se al of the said

court on this 10th day of August, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 16

- 2359

- CV, pending in the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe

County , Texas, the Honorable William Old presiding.
#### Angel Ortiz DIAMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56036

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

*728Angel Ortiz Diamond, Pro Se

Paul L. Winnemore, Los Angeles City-Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Ortiz Diamond appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion dismissal of an action as duplicative. *Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,*487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), *overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,*553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Diamond’s action against the City of Los Angeles because the instant action is duplicative of Diamond’s earlier action against the City of Los Angeles in the same district court. *See id.*at 688-89 (explaining that an action is duplicative if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same (citations omitted)).

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

Diamond’s request to consolidate appeals, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2060 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2060

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2060/2002 of 20 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 as regards the licences required to import residues made from the manufacture of starch from maize from the United States of America **

*
Official Journal L 317 , 21/11/2002 P. 0020 - 0021 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2060/2002

of 20 November 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 as regards the licences required to import residues made from the manufacture of starch from maize from the United States of America

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 20 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 of 2 August 1994 on imports of residues from the manufacture of starch from maize from the United States of America(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 396/96(4), lays down special provisions to ensure that the imported product conforms with the agreed tariff definition. These provisions include a certificate issued by the United States wet milling industry.

(2) The agency responsible for issuing this certificate has changed. The name and address on the certificate needs to be amended accordingly. It is also appropriate to add to the certificate a reference to its date of issue.

(3) Provision must be made for a transitional period during which certificates issued before the date of entry into force of this Regulation can be used.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 must therefore be amended.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2019/94, the model "Certificate of Conformity" is replaced by the model in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

Certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 before the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall continue to be valid.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the tenth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 203, 6.8.1994, p. 5.

(4) OJ L 54, 5.3.1996, p. 22.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>PIC FILE= "L_2002317EN.002102.TIF">
EXHIBIT 11

                                 BACOU USA, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 (in thousands)
                                   (unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                                 June 30,                       June 30,
                                                         ---------------------------     ----------------------------
                                                           1998            1999            1998            1999
                                                         -----------     -----------     -----------    -------------

Basic:
<S>                                                        <C>             <C>             <C>              <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding                        17,599          17,619          17,596           17,618
                                                         ===========     ===========     ===========    =============
Net income                                                 $6,099          $7,908          $8,835          $13,382
                                                         ===========     ===========     ===========    =============
Per share amount                                            $0.35           $0.45           $0.50           $ 0.76
                                                         ===========     ===========     ===========    =============

Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding                        17,599          17,619          17,596           17,618
Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the
  treasury stock method using the average market
  price                                                       132              27              92               98
                                                         -----------     -----------     -----------    -------------

Total diluted shares                                       17,731          17,646          17,688           17,716
                                                         ===========     ===========     ===========    =============

Net income                                                 $6,099          $7,908          $8,835          $13,382
                                                         ===========     ===========     ===========    =============
Per share amount                                            $0.35           $0.45           $0.50           $ 0.76
                                                         ===========     ===========     ===========    =============
</TABLE>
INNOVATIVE MEDICAL SERVICES                                           EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND 1999

                                                      For the Three Months Ended
                                                             October 31
                                                      1999             1998


Shares outstanding                                    4,552,242        3,916,351
                                                     ----------        ---------

Weighted average shares outstanding                   4,451,372        3,916,351
Stock Options                                         1,452,500        1,514,375
Warrants                                              1,798,125        1,798,125
                                                      ---------        ---------
      Total weighted average shares outstanding       7,701,997        7,048,918
                                                      =========        =========

Net Income (Loss)                                    $  146,161        $ 137,742
                                                     ==========        =========

Basic Net Earnings (Loss) per share                  $     0.03         $   0.04
                                                     ==========         ========

Diluted Net Earnings (Loss) per share                $     0.02         $   0.02
                                                     ==========         ========
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damion Ryan LONEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30309

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2017

Melissa Y. Lou, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven V. Richert, Federal Defenders Eastern Washington and Idaho, Pocatello, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Damion Ryan Loneman challenges the 172-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(1) and 1153. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Loneman contends that the district court erred in failing to provide notice to the parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), of its intent to depart from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. We review for plain error and find none. *See United States v. Cruz-Perez,*567 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2009). The record shows that the district court relied on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when it imposed a sentence above the Guidelines range agreed upon by the parties. Because the court’s sentence was the result of a variance under section 3553(a), not a departure based on a provision of the Guidelines, Rule 32(h) does not apply. *See Irizarry v. United States,*553 U.S. 708, 714, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 171 L.Ed.2d 28 (2008).

Loneman also contends that his sentence is arbitrary and unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Loneman’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. *523586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Loneman’s violent criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the seriousness of the offense. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Greg WALSH; Christina Walsh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; US Bank, National Association, As Trustee of Chevy Chase Funding, LLC, Mortgage-Backed Certificates, 2005-1; Mark Runkel, Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, US Bank; P.W. Parker, Vice Chairman and Chief Risk Officer, US Bankcorp, Vice Chairman, Defendants-Appellees, *270and The Law Offices of Jeffrey Nadel; Jeffrey Nadel; Does 1 Through 15, Inclusive, Defendants.

No. 17-1670

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: November 2, 2017

Greg Walsh; Christina Walsh, Appellants Pro Se. Aaron Drew Neal, MCNA-MEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & LYNCH PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees,

Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Greg Walsh and Christina Walsh appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil complaint as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Walsh v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC,*No. 1:17-cv-00591-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2017 & Apr., 26, 2017). 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*
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31     SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                            ------------------------------    ------------------------------
                                                 1996              1995           1996             1995
                                            ---------------    -----------    -------------    -------------
<S>                                         <C>                <C>            <C>              <C>           
PRIMARY:
Average shares outstanding                        3,695,000      1,775,000        3,695,000        1,775,000
Net effect of stock and warrant issuances
   with exercise prices below the initial
   public offering price based on the
   treasury stock method                                --          65,000                            65,000
                                            ---------------    -----------    -------------    -------------

Total                                             3,695,000      1,840,000        3,695,000        1,840,000
                                            ===============    ===========    =============    =============

Net loss                                    $    (1,308,543)   $  (516,127)   $  (2,104,380)   $    (909,266)
                                            ===============    ===========    =============    =============

Per share amount                            $         (0.35)   $     (0.28)   $       (0.57)   $       (0.49)
                                            ===============    ===========    =============    =============


</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 906

To amend title 18, United States Code, to add multiple deaths as an aggravating factor in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed

on a defendant, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 9 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. BRADLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to add multiple

deaths as an aggravating factor in determining whether

a sentence of death is to be imposed on a defendant,

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. MULTIPLE DEATHS AS AGGRAVATING FACTOR.

4 Section 3592(c) of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph:
2

•S 906 IS

1 ‘‘(16) MULTIPLE DEATHS.—The death, or in2 jury resulting in death, of more than 1 person, oc3 curred during the commission of the crime.’’.

Æ
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

L-3 Communications Corporation ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W58RGZ-10-C-0107 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58357 

Jeremy D. Kernodle, Esq. 

Haynes and Boone, LLP 

Dallas, TX 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

L TC Brian J. Chapuran, JA 

CPT Harry M. Parent, J A 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Board has received the parties' joint motion dated 8 August 2014 to dismiss 

or alternatively suspend this appeal. The parties request that the Board dismiss this 

appeal without prejudice pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b) to permit settlement discussions to 

continue. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice under Board Rule 18(b ). 

Unless either party or the Board acts within one year to reinstate the appeal, the dismissal 

shall be deemed with prejudice. 

Dated: 11 August 2014 

r~1~~ ,/:Y ~~ MARK N. STEMPLE 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58357, Appeal ofL-3 

Communications Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Ismael OROZCO-VAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41546 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 22, 2017

Christopher Howard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, John. Moreno Parras, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Ismael Orozco-Vazquez appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute *361cocame for which he was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

In reviewing a district court’s suppression ruling, we review factual findings for clear error and questions of law de novo. *United States v. Jaime,*473 F.3d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 2006). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous so long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. *United States v. McKinnon,*681 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2012). Facts are construed in the light most favorable to the Government as the prevailing party on the motion to suppress. *United States v. Macias,*658 F.3d 509, 517 (5th Cir. 2011).

The district court did not clearly err in denying Orozco-Vazquez’s motion to suppress. *See Jaime,*473 F.3d at 181. Orozco-Vazquez’s detention in the primary inspection lane was within the permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop. *See United States v. Machuca-Barrera,*261 F.3d 425, 431-35 (5th Cir. 2001).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm, 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 Cm, R. 47,5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statements of operations and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                        
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    jun-30-1997
<CASH>                          29,304
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,821,002
<ALLOWANCES>                    111,966
<INVENTORY>                     7,532,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                11,883,495
<PP&E>                          7,945,568
<DEPRECIATION>                  2,884,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  20,460,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           6,238,646
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        3,597
<OTHER-SE>                      9,638,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    20,460,043
<SALES>                         17,044,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                17,044,394
<CGS>                           10,858,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   15,824,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                156,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              234,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,141,949
<INCOME-TAX>                    439,163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             702,786
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    702,786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .20
        


</TABLE>