alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mario BACHILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-11310

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 30, 2011.

Mario Bachiller, Jonesville, VA, pro se.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Anthony W. Lacosta, Jeanne M. Mullenhoff, Laura Thomas Rivero, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mario Bachiller, a federal prisoner, appeals *pro se*the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Ground 6 of his motion, Bachiller alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a jury instruction to determine the quantity of drugs individually attributable to him and the other defendants at his trial on drug, robbery, and firearm charges. We granted a certificate of appealability on the following issue:

> Whether the district court violated *Clisby v. Jones,*960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir.1992), by failing to address Bachil-ler’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction requiring the jury to make a threshold determination of the drug quantity attributable to each defendant.

In ground 6 of his motion to vacate, Bachiller fairly presented a claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction for the jury to make a threshold determination of the drug amount attributable to each defendant at his trial. The government concedes that the district court did not address this claim. We disagree with the contention of the government that Bachiller waived his argument by failing to raise it in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying Bachiller’s motion and remand with instructions to address the claim that he raised in ground 6.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1831/2004

of 21 October 2004         

amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 930/2000 establishing implementing rules as to the suitability of the denomination of varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (1), and in particular Article 9(6) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (2), and in particular Article 9(6) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 930/2000 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall not apply to variety denominations which have been proposed by the applicant to the competent authority for their approval before the entry into force of this Regulation.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 October 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 33. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(3)OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1650/2003 (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 28).

(4)OJ L 108, 5.5.2000, p. 3.

(5)OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(6)OJ L 121, 1.6.1995, p. 37. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2181/2002 (OJ L 331, 7.12.2002, p. 14).

----
#### In the Matter of Roger L. Paul, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[944 NYS2d 925]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1978. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the Village of Northville, Fulton County.

Respondent has admitted the charges of professional misconduct set forth in the petition, and we have heard respondent in mitigation. Respondent converted funds from his attorney escrow account over a period of several months in 2010 for personal purposes and also issued a check against insufficient funds on the escrow account in May 2010, all in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 1.15 (a) and 8.4 (c) (d) and (h).

Respondent’s serious misconduct is mitigated by his restitution of the converted funds, the lack of apparent client harm, his expressions of remorse, his full cooperation with petitioner’s investigation, his good personal and professional reputation, and his commendable service to his community and the public over the course of his career, including pro bono client representation. Respondent has explained that he used the escrow funds to keep his practice open during an especially difficult downturn in his business, but acknowledges that this was no excuse for his professional misconduct.

In order to protect the public, deter similar professional misconduct and preserve the reputation of the bar, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective immediately and until further order of this Court. However, we stay the suspension upon condition that respondent provide petitioner with semiannual reports by a certified public accountant confirming that he is maintaining his escrow account and preserving client funds in *1648accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct *(see*22 NYCRR 1200.0). The first such semiannual report shall be due within 30 days of the date of this decision and the reporting requirement shall continue until further order of this Court. Any failure to meet the condition shall be reported by petitioner to this Court. After the expiration of the two-year suspension period, respondent may apply to this Court for termination of the suspension. Any such application shall be supported by proof that respondent complied with the condition and that he took and passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within the suspension period and shall be served on petitioner, which may be heard thereon.

Peters, PJ., Spain, Kavanagh, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court, which suspension is stayed upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Court’s decision.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 56 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 

adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Thursday, August 2, 2012, through Mon4 day, August 6, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 

7 Monday, September 10, 2012, or such other time on that 

8 day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his des9 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 

10 of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

SCON 56 ATS 

1 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 

2 House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, Au3 gust 2, 2012, through Monday, August 6, 2012, on a mo4 tion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

5 Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 

6 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2012, or until the 

7 time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con8 current resolution, whichever occurs first. 

9 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the 

10 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 

11 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

12 Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

13 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re14 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

15 if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2011311EN.01004001.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM — British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg)

(Case T-271/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg - Earlier national word mark JAN III SOBIESKI and earlier national figurative mark JAN III Sobieski - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the application fee or to do so by bank transfer within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the action to be unfounded - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 - Application for restitutio in integrum - Lack of exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 311/71

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: U. Fitzner and U.H. Fitzner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. (Augustów, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2009 (Case R 771/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. and Romuald Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
# C_2019295EN.01004001.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/40

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Contu v Parliament

(Case T-412/19)

(2019/C 295/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Felice Contu (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      72,683,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            74,549,930
<PP&E>                                       8,107,488
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,621,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,680,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,868,960
<BONDS>                                      5,837,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,833
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,716,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,680,618
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,937,407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,548,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (804,889)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,805,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,805,850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,805,850)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC. 
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

 

I, Joel Boyarski, the Chief Financial Officer ofWorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications,Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, which this certificationaccompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and informationcontained in the March 31, 2005 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGateCommunications, Inc.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be retained by WorldGateand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Dated: May 16, 2005 | /s/  JOEL BOYARSKI |   |
|---------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                | Joel Boyarski           |   |
|                     |                         |        |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Debt to Equity



|                     |  |                         |         |  |      |   |         |      |  |   |         |  |  |      |         |  |  |   |         | 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------- |  | ---- | - | ------- | ---- |  | - | ------- |  |  | ---- | ------- |  |  | - | ------- | 
|                     |  | Year ended December 31, |        
|Dollars in thousands |  | 2010                    |         |  | 2009 |   |         | 2008 |  |   | 2007    |  |  | 2006 |        
|Debt                 |  | $                       | 380,532 |  |      | $ | 382,522 |      |  | $ | 462,650 |  |  | $    | 542,549 |  |  | $ | 455,137 | 
|Equity               |  |                         | 162,765 |  |      |   | 162,977 |      |  |   | 174,946 |  |  |      | 172,423 |  |  |   | 169,628 | 
|Debt to equity       |  |                         | 2.34    |  |      |   | 2.35    |      |  |   | 2.64    |  |  |      | 3.15    |  |  |   | 2.68    |
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Metalline Mining Company (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Merlin
      D. Bingham, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1. The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition, and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Merlin D. Bingham


President








Dated:
      March 17, 2006
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Ellman, Appellant.

—Appeal by Kenneth Ellman from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.), entered May 14, 1984, which summarily held him in criminal contempt of court and fined him the sum of $100.

Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the purported contempt was committed within the immediate view and presence of the court and was punished summarily, review should be had under CPLR article 78 and not by appeal *(see, People v Epps,*21 AD2d 650, *cert denied*379 US 940; *Matter of Katz,*62 Misc 2d 342). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

David E. Hershberg, ChiefExecutive Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., and Andrew C. Melfi, ChiefFinancial Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report ofGlobecomm Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31,2004 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in theQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Globecomm SystemsInc.

|                   |  |                                                                   |  |  |  |  |
|-------------------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Date:May 17, 2004 |  | By: /s/ DAVID E.HERSHBERG                                         |
|              |  | David E.HershbergChairman of the Board andChief ExecutiveOfficer  |
|              |  | By:/s/ ANDREW C.MELFI                                             |
|              |  | Andrew C.MelfiVice President, Chief Financial OfficerandTreasurer |
|                   |

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to GlobecommSystems Inc. and will be retained by Globecomm Systems Inc. andfurnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

33

----
EXHIBIT 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Debt to Equity



|                     |  |                         |  |      |         |  |      |   |         |      |  |   |         |  |  |   |         | 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ---- | ------- |  | ---- | - | ------- | ---- |  | - | ------- |  |  | - | ------- | 
|                     |  | Year ended December 31, | 
|Dollars in thousands |  | 2016                    |  | 2015 |         |  | 2014 |   |         | 2013 |  |   | 2012    | 
|Debt                 |  | $349,073                |  | $    | 404,540 |  |      | $ | 348,795 |      |  | $ | 314,958 |  |  | $ | 322,770 | 
|Equity               |  | 286,096                 |  |      | 278,088 |  |      |   | 274,670 |      |  |   | 273,495 |  |  |   | 216,318 | 
|Debt to equity       |  | 1.22                    |  |      | 1.45    |  |      |   | 1.27    |      |  |   | 1.15    |  |  |   | 1.49    |
# C_2020137EN.01005502.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/55

---

Order of the General Court of 13 February 2020 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Lacoste (LOVE PINK)

(Case T-582/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/87)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10430 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Pedro Tatum,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 365

- 4

Before **King, Southwick,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Tatum has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Tatum has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10430 Document: 00515882173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2021No. 20

- 10430

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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

. Case: 20-10430 Document: 00515882173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2021