alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50362

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARNALDO RAFAEL VICENTE INFANTE-CABRERA, 

also known as Juan Santos,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-1150-1-DB

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arnaldo Rafael Vicente Infante-Cabrera appeals his guilty

plea conviction for conspiracy to import more than 5 kilograms of

cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B). Infante-Cabrera argues that the district court did

not adequately comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 at his guilty-plea

hearing. He argues that the individual variances from the rule,

as well as the cumulative effect of the individual variances,
No. 02-50362

-2-

were clear or obvious errors that affected his substantial

rights. 

After reviewing the entire record, United States v. Vonn,

535 U.S. 55, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002), we have determined

that none of the Rule 11 errors alleged by Infante-Cabrera

affected Infante-Cabrera’s substantial rights or affected the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial

proceedings in this case. See United States v. Calverley,

37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), abrogated in part,

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). Infante-Cabrera’s

“cumulative effect” argument is also without merit. We conclude

from the record that it is not likely that, had the district

court conducted an ideal Rule 11 plea colloquy, Infante-Cabrera’s

willingness to plead guilty would have been affected. See United

States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 559 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Infante-Cabrera also argues that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel at rearraignment and at sentencing. 

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved

on direct appeal when the claim has not first been raised in

the district court. United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544

(5th Cir. 1991). Because the district court did not make any

factual findings regarding the allegations of ineffective

assistance, an analysis of these claims would require speculation

by this court as to the reasons for counsel’s alleged acts and

omissions. See United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497, 503
No. 02-50362

-3-

(5th Cir. 1998). We therefore decline to reach the merits of

Infante-Cabrera’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without

prejudice to his right to present this matter to the district

court via a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States

v. Route, 104 F.3d 59, 64-65 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          41,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  654,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (17,850)
<INVENTORY>                                    525,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,542,620
<PP&E>                                       1,095,314
<DEPRECIATION>                               (285,235)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,441,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,170,724
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,125,718
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,854,839)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,441,603
<SALES>                                        795,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               282,289
<CGS>                                          282,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  377,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            135,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   137,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
#### Ronald NORDSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geoff DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55901

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 8, 2017

Jonathan Birdt, Attorney, Law Office of Jonathan W. Birdt, Porter Ranch, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Marina Gatti Porche, Office of the County Counsel, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Ronald Nordstrom appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell,*845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nordstrom’s Second Amendment claim because “the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.” *Peruta v. County of San Diego,*824 F.3d 919, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR the REGISTERED HOLDERS OF WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST, COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-C28, acting by and through its Special Servicer CWCapital Asset Management LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEXIA HOLDINGS, INC., successor in interest to Dexia Real Estate Capital Markets, f/k/a Artesia Mortgage Capital Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

17-0127-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 13, 2017

*24FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Gregory A. Cross (Colleen M. Mallon on the brief), Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Kenneth I. Schacter (Dina R. Kaufman on the brief), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY.

PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Debra A. Livingston, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-C28, acting by and through its Special Servicer CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“Trust”) appeals the District Court’s judgment awarding attorney’s fees to Defendant-Appellee Dexia Holdings, Inc., successor in interest to Dexia Real Estate Capital Markets, formerly known as Arte-sia Mortgage Capital Corporation (“De-xia”) in the litigation between them.

To resolve this appeal, we need reach only four of the Trust’s arguments. These arguments are that the District Court erred in: (1) declining to adhere to what the Trust asserts was the law of the case; (2) interpreting the plain language of the applicable contracts to require the Trust to pay Dexia’s attorney’s fees; (3) declining to reduce the award of fees against the Trust to avoid an inequitable result; and (4) refusing to offset Dexia’s recovery in a separate proceeding against the attorney’s fee award in the instant case. Upon due consideration, we conclude—for substantially the same reasons given by the District Court—that these arguments are without merit.1*See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Dexia Real Estate Capital Mkts.,*No. 12 Civ. 9412, 2016 WL 4368377, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2016) (law of the case); *id.*at *4 (plain text of contracts); *id.*at *8 (equity); *U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Dexia Real Estate Capital Mkts.,*No. 12 Civ. 9412, 2016 WL 6996176, at *4-7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2016) (offset).

CONCLUSION

We therefore AFFIRM the District Court’s judgment of December 19, 2016.

1

. In light of our resolution of these four issues, we do not decide, for example, whether the District Court "erred in interpreting the obligation to pay attorneys' fees as a 'remedy.' ” PI.-Appellant Br. 35.
#### Gladstone A. DAINTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1852

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 28, 2017

Decided: January 9, 2018

*118Jason A. Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Virginia W. Barnhart, Sarah E. Meyer, TREANOR POPE *&*HUGHES, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gladstone A. Dainty appeals the district court’s orders granting Wells Fargo Bank’s motion to dismiss and denying Dainty’s motion for reconsideration. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint as true and “drawing all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiffs] favor.” *Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc.,*851 F.3d 315, 319 (4th Cir. 2017). We review the denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. *Aikens v. Ingram,*652 F.3d 496, 501 (2011) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Dainty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,*No. 8:16-cv-02755-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2017; July 7, 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*
# EUR-Lex - 32002R0949 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R0949

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 949/2002 of 3 June 2002 on the issuing of a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of 5500 tonnes of sorghum held by the French intervention agency **

*
Official Journal L 145 , 04/06/2002 P. 0011 - 0011 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 949/2002

of 3 June 2002

on the issuing of a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of 5500 tonnes of sorghum held by the French intervention agency

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 30 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 5 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1630/2000(4), laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by the intervention agencies.

(2) In the present market situation, a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of 5500 tonnes of sorghum held by the French intervention agency should be issued.

(3) 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

The French intervention agency shall issue, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of 5500 tonnes of sorghum held by it.

Article 2

1. The final date for the submission of tenders for the first partial invitation to tender shall be 11 June 2002.

2. The final date for the submission of tenders for the last partial invitation to tender shall expire on 24 September 2002.

3. Tenders must be lodged with the French intervention agency at the following address: Office national interprofessionnel des céréales 21, avenue Bosquet F - 75326 Paris Fax (33-1) 44 18 20 80.

Article 3

Not later than Tuesday of the week following the final date for the submission of tenders, the French intervention agency shall notify the Commission of the quantities and average prices of the various lots sold.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 3 June 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 191, 31.7.1993, p. 76.

(4) OJ L 187, 26.7.2000, p. 24.
----

----

| (1)    | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                               |   |

| Date:      November 7, 2008 | /s/ Patrick J.      Goodman                            |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Patrick      J. Goodman                                |
|                             | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                             | (principal      financial officer)                     |

----

----
# L_2004351EN.01004301.xml

| 26.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 351/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 351/43

---

Pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Financial Regulation of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), adopted by the Management Board on 10 June 2004, ‘the budget and amending budgets, as finally adopted, shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union
  ’.

The first amending budget of EMEA for 2004 was adopted by the Management Board on 30 September 2004 (MB/73594/2004).

| (in EUR) |
| --- |
| Item | Description | Budget 2002 | Budget 2003 | Budget 2004 | Amendments | Revised budget 2004 |
| Revenue |
| 1 0 0 | Fee income | 38 372 000 | 56 742 000 | 64 800 000 | 2 200 000 | 67 000 000 |
| 5 2 0 | Revenue from bank interest | 340 385 | 400 000 | 500 000 | 20 000 | 520 000 |
| 5 2 1 | Revenue from export certificates, parallel distributions and other similar administrative charges | 1 306 800 | 1 800 000 | 1 852 000 | 170 000 | 2 022 000 |
| 6 0 0 | Contributions to Community Programmes and revenue from services | 8 500 | 1 530 000 | p.m. | 103 | 103 |
| 9 0 0 | Miscellaneous revenue | 53 581 | 698 000 | 350 000 | 80 000 | 430 000 |
| | | | | 2 470 103 | |
| | Total Budget | 58 401 088 | 84 179 000 | 96 619 000 | 2 470 103 | 99 089 103 |
| Expenditure |
| 2 1 2 1 | Purchase of new software for specified projects | 387 337 | 1 051 790 | 945 000 | 600 000 | 1 545 000 |
| 2 1 2 5 | Analysis, programming and technical assistance for specified projects | 760 609 | 4 526 900 | 3 606 000 | 770 000 | 4 376 000 |
| 3 0 1 0 | Evaluation of medicinal products | 15 438 520 | 24 311 800 | 26 783 000 | 1 100 000 | 27 883 000 |
| 3 0 5 0 | Community programmes | 8 500 | 1 407 400 | p.m. | 103 | 103 |
| | | | | 2 470 103 | |
| | Total Budget | 58 401 088 | 84 179 000 | 96 619 000 | 2 470 103 | 99 089 103 |

(in EUR)

Item

Description

Budget 2002

Budget 2003

Budget 2004

Amendments

Revised budget 2004

Revenue

1 0 0

Fee income

38 372 000

56 742 000

64 800 000

2 200 000

67 000 000

5 2 0

Revenue from bank interest

340 385

400 000

500 000

20 000

520 000

5 2 1

Revenue from export certificates, parallel distributions and other similar administrative charges

1 306 800

1 800 000

1 852 000

170 000

2 022 000

6 0 0

Contributions to Community Programmes and revenue from services

8 500

1 530 000

p.m.

103

103

9 0 0

Miscellaneous revenue

53 581

698 000

350 000

80 000

430 000

2 470 103

Total Budget

58 401 088

84 179 000

96 619 000

2 470 103

99 089 103

Expenditure

2 1 2 1

Purchase of new software for specified projects

387 337

1 051 790

945 000

600 000

1 545 000

2 1 2 5

Analysis, programming and technical assistance for specified projects

760 609

4 526 900

3 606 000

770 000

4 376 000

3 0 1 0

Evaluation of medicinal products

15 438 520

24 311 800

26 783 000

1 100 000

27 883 000

3 0 5 0

Community programmes

8 500

1 407 400

p.m.

103

103

2 470 103

Total Budget

58 401 088

84 179 000

96 619 000

2 470 103

99 089 103

---
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1251 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1251

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2002 of 11 July 2002 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings **

*
Official Journal L 183 , 12/07/2002 P. 0009 - 0009 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2002

of 11 July 2002

derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation No 79/65/EEC of the Council of 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1256/97(2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83(3) provides that the liaison agency shall forward all the farm returns to the Commission not later than nine months after the end of the accounting year to which they relate, the timely delivery being a condition for receiving the standard fee referred to in Article 5 of that Regulation.

(2) Recent amendments to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2237/77(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1837/2001(5), amending Commission Regulation No 118/66/EEC(6) on the form of farm return to be used for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings, as well as various animal diseases in some Member States have made it very difficult for liaison agencies to respect this time limit for the accounting years 2000 and 2001; taking into account these circumstances, it is appropriate to provide for a prolongation in the period of delivering the data for these accounting years to the Commission.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

By way of derogation from the first and second paragraphs of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83, for the accounting years 2000 and 2001 the period for the forwarding of the farm returns shall be 22 months.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of 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, 11 July 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 109, 23.6.1965, p. 1859/65.

(2) OJ L 174, 2.7.1997, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 190, 14.7.1983, p. 25.

(4) OJ L 263, 17.10.1977, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 255, 24.9.2001, p. 1.

(6) OJ 148, 10.8.1966, p. 2701/66.
----

----

| (1)  | the Quarterly Report      on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and  |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | the information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                       |

| Date:      April 29, 2008 | /s/ Joseph L.      Sullivan        |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                | Joseph      L. Sullivan            |
|                                | President                          |
|                                | (principal      executive officer) |

----