alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41259 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 3, 2017

*380Carmen 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Rodriguez pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to importing approximately 15' kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 and was sentenced within the advisory sentencing guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He now asserts that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that he had knowledge of the particular type and quantity of controlled substance involved in his offense.

As Rodriguez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that *Flores-Figueroa v. United States,*556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not overturn *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the Government is not required to prove knowledge of the drug type and quantity as an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. *See also United States v. Mata,*513 Fed.Appx. 401, 402 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a similar challenge to a drug conspiracy conviction as foreclosed by *Betancourt); United States v. Zuniga-Martinez,*512 Fed.Appx. 428, 428-29 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a similar challenge to a conviction for importing a controlled substance into the United States as foreclosed by *Betancourt).**1*

Accordingly, Rodriguez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Although an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996, is not controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority. *See Ballard v. Burton,*444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ Gerard P. Cuddy                            |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gerard P. Cuddy                                |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer               |   |
|   |                                                |   |
|   | /s/ Joseph F. Conners                          |   |
|   | Joseph F. ConnersExecutive Vice President and Chief |   |
|   | Financial Officer                                   |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert L. HILL, Jr. Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3799

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2017

Filed: May 23, 2017

Alison D. Dunning, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Robert L. Hill, Jr., Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Hill appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses under a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

As to Hill’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, we enforce the appeal waiver and decline to consider the merits of the issue. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (“This court reviews de novo the validity and applicability of [an] appeal waiver.”); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc), (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003), The remaining issues raised by counsel are those specifically outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Nevertheless, we also decline to consider the merits of Hill’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that .ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily best litigated in collateral proceedings, where the record can be properly developed). Further, Hill has not pointed to anything in the record that shows prosecutorial misconduct. See United States v. Clayton, 787 F.3d 929, 933 (8th Cir. 2015) (noting that a defendant claiming prosecutorial misconduct must *510show that the government’s conduct was improper and that it affected his substantial rights such that he was deprived of a fair trial). Finally, we conclude that Hill’s sentence is not illegal. See Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“An unlawful or illegal sentence is one imposed without, or in excess of, statutory authority.”).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues that-are not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3077

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Kevin Dean Lambert, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

*

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2001

Filed: March 27, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, 

and TUNHEIM1, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
2The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-

Kevin Dean Lambert appeals his drug and firearm convictions entered upon a

guilty plea in the district court.2 We affirm.

In November 1999, a grand jury returned a three-count indictment against

Lambert, charging him with (1) conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 856; (2) possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C); and (3)

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

924(c). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lambert pleaded guilty to counts one and three,

noting that he and the government disagreed as to drug quantity but admitting he was

responsible for at least 200 grams of methamphetamine. At sentencing, Lambert and

the government agreed that he was responsible for between 350 and 500 grams of

methamphetamine. Accepting this drug quantity agreement, the district court sentenced

Lambert at the bottom of the resulting Guidelines range to 120 months imprisonment

and also imposed the mandatory consecutive 60 months on the gun charge. 

Lambert's sole argument on appeal is that the district court violated the

constitutional principles articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000)

by sentencing him above the mandatory five-year minimum required by § 924(c) even

though the government did not prove drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lambert's argument is misguided, however, as Apprendi mandates proof beyond a

reasonable doubt only of those facts that increase a defendant's sentence beyond the

statutory maximum. Id. at 2362-63; United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926,

933 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 600 (2000). Even if we ignore Lambert's

admissions as to drug quantity, his 180-month total sentence is within the 20-year
-3-

maximum authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) for the drug offense simpliciter.

Lambert's sentence thus presents no Apprendi error.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0037 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0037

**2002/37/EC: Commission Decision of 15 January 2002 amending for the sixth time Decision 2001/740/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 78) **

*
Official Journal L 015 , 17/01/2002 P. 0034 - 0041 *

Commission Decision

of 15 January 2002

amending for the sixth time Decision 2001/740/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom

(notified under document number C(2002) 78)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/37/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market(3), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC, and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2001/740/EC(4), as last amended by Decision 2001/938/EC(5), concerns certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom.

(2) The last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain was recorded on 30 September 2001. Certain counties in Great Britain, which are listed in Annex III, have had no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease during this epidemic, while others have remained free from the disease for more than 3 months.

(3) The improved animal health situation now allows to enlarge the area from where live bovine and porcine animals and meat of animals of susceptible species may be dispatched.

(4) The situation should be reviewed at the meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee scheduled for 15 and 16 January 2002 and the measures adapted where necessary.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex III of Decision 2001/740/EC is replaced by the Annex to the present Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 January 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13.

(4) OJ L 277, 20.10.2001, p. 30.

(5) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 99.

ANNEX

"ANNEX III

>TABLE>

ADNS= Animal Disease Notification System Code (Decision 2000/807/EC)

GIS= Administrative Unit Code

B= bovine meat

S/G= sheep and goat meat

P= pig meat

FG= farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease

WG= wild game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease

LB= live bovine animals

LP= live pigs"
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 808 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
                                 S. 808

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CONVERSION.

    Section 601(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 (Public 
Law 103-206, 107 Stat. 2445) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``June 30, 1995'' and 
        inserting ``June 30, 1996''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``12 months'' and 
        inserting ``24 months''.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 808

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        and for other purposes.
```
#### Stephanie L. PICKERING; Terri A. O’Keefe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35099

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Stephanie L. Pickering, Pro Se

Terri A. O’Keefe, Pro Se

Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steven J. Dixson, Attorney, Michael J. Kapaun, Witherspoon Kelley, *710Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of America Home Loans, Bank of America, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Lance E. Olsen, Esquire, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Stephanie L. Pickering and Terri A. O’Keefe appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims related to their mortgage loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d *338, 341 (9th*Cir. 2010). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend plaintiffs’ claim arising under the Home Affordable Modification Program because amendment would have been futile. *See Gardner v. Martino,*563 F.3d 981, 990, 992 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is appropriate where amendment would be futile).

We do not consider plaintiffs’ breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and declaratory relief claims because plaintiffs failed to challenge the district court’s dismissal of those claims in their opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief).

The district court failed to address plaintiffs’ allegations that Bank of America violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s (“RE SPA”) corresponding regulations in processing plaintiffs’ loan modification application. *See*12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 (setting forth loss mitigation procedures for mortgage loan servicers in evaluating a borrower’s loan modification request); *see also Edwards v. First Am. Corp.,*798 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining RESPA’s corresponding regulations under Regulation X). We vacate the judgment in part for the district court to consider plaintiffs’ RESPA claim in the first instance.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 911

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the

United States for the vessel SEA MISTRESS.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the

9 United States for the vessel SEA MISTRESS (United

10 States official number 696806).

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 911

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

SEA MISTRESS.wise trade of the United States for the vesselpriate endorsement for employment in the coastissue a certificate of documentation with appro-
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 51103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7991]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ferdinand Hodler: View to Infinity''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ferdinand Hodler: View to Infinity,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Neue Galerie, 
New York, NY, from on or about September 20, 2012, until on or about 
January 7, 2013, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 15, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-20794 Filed 8-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
The Sta te of



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

Friday, February 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00787

- CR

Matthew O. ARANDA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011 CR2070 Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

T he reporter’s r ecord was due to be filed with this court on January 6, 2015

. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 35.1. On January 13, 2015, this court granted court reporter Kay Gittinger’s request for a thirty

- day extension o f time to file the record until February 5, 2015

.
On February 9, 2015

, the court reporter filed a second request for a thirty

- day extension

o f time to file the reporter’s record until March 9, 2015

. The request is GRANTED. The reporter’s recor d m ust be filed with this cou rt not later than March 9, 2015

. See id. R. 35.3(c).
If the reporter’s record is not filed with this court by March 9, 2015

, any requests for additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status report. The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required elec tronic form (including bookmarks). The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record. The report must describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the requested date. A preferred form for the status report, with an accompanying example, is attached to this order

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav e hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our Independent Auditors' Report dated February 29, 2008 regarding the statements of financial condition of
1st Pacific Bancorp and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the three years
ended December 31, 2007 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO., LLP

Laguna
Hills, California
March 28, 2008

---



QuickLinks