alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 95-31097

Summary Calendar

________________

DIANE WILLIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INTEROCEAN MANAGEMENT; ET AL,

Defendants,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, represented

by the Secretary of Transportation, acting

through the Maritime Administrator

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2701-E

_________________________________________________________________

July 30, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Diane Willis appeals from the dismissal of a complaint

filed under the Suits in Admiralty Act for lack of subject matter
2

jurisdiction. Willis contends that the doctrine of equitable

tolling applies to toll the running of the applicable two-year

statute of limitations period. We have reviewed the record and the

parties’ briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for

essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court.

Willis v. Interocean Management, No. 94-CV-2701-E (E.D. La. Oct.

31, 1995).

Further, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Henderson

v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 USLW 4362 (1996), which

overturned this court’s reading of the Suits in Admiralty Act

requirement of “forthwith” service, United States v. Holmberg, 19

F.3d 1062 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 482 (1994), comes too

late to help Ms. Willis. The issue in the instant appeal was not

timeliness but equitable tolling, and Henderson does nothing to

undermine the district court’s denial of equitable tolling.

AFFIRMED
Michael J. HARRIS, petitioner, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden.

No. 17-6244.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 6, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00038

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF EMILY D. PRIETO , Deceased, Appellant

From the County Court At Law No 1

, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008

- PB7

- 0 00086L1 Honorable Hugo Ma rtinez , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 28, 2022, appellant Eduardo David Prieto filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s October 19, 2021 orders granting appellee Victor G. Prieto’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Ap pellant filed his brief on July 8, 2022, making appellee’s brief due by August 8, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b) (setting appellee’s brief deadline as thirty days after appellant’s brief is filed). Appellee did not file a brief, and this court notifie d appellee’s attorney of the deficiency on August 18, 2022. We also instructed appellee’s attorney to file a response by August 29, 2022 with a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the brief. On August 26, 2022, appellee’s attorney, Ryan Sol is, filed a response, stating he did not represent appellee on appeal and appellee indicated he would not be hiring appellate counsel. Accordingly, appellee is advised if he wishes to file a brief, he must file his brief by October 6, 2022

. I f the brief is not filed, this case will be set at issue without an appellee’s brief.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I h ave hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

c o urt on this 6th day of September, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# C_2010234EN.01001702.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/17

---

Order of the Court of 22 March 2010 — Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-39/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Common organisation of the banana market - Arrangements for importing bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community - Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer - Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy - Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

2010/C 234/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) (represented by: A. Farache, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, E. Sitbon, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 in Case T-128/05 SPM v Council and Commission, by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action seeking damages for the loss which it suffered as a result of the allegedly illegal rules adopted by the Council and the Commission on the import of bananas into the Community — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Bananas originating in ACP countries — Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer — Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy — Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration

SPM

Council and Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

1

---
# C_2010063EN.01002501.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/25

---

Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-515/09)

2010/C 63/40

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 May 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.

1

---
Kenneth BALLARD v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7402 (R46-025 / OT 2017).

Supreme Court of the United States

April 5, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
David BARRERA-VALDIVIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8121.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 21.1

As at December 31, 2001, Sideware Systems Inc. has
nine wholly owned subsidiaries:

Sideware Corp.
3032650 Nova Scotia Company
Sideware International SRL
9050 Investments Ltd.
Evergreen International Technology Inc.
9123 Investments Ltd.
484117 B.C. Ltd.
JOT-IT! Software Corp.
and Doorchester 52613 Investments Ltd.

9050 Investments Ltd., Evergreen International Technology Inc.,
9123 Investments Ltd., 484117 B.C. Ltd., JOT-IT! Software Corp.,
and Doorchester 52613 Investments Ltd. were all incorporated
under the laws of the Province of British Columbia.  None of
those companies carries on active business or has any material
assets.

In addition, Sideware Systems Inc. owns a majority interest
in Chalk.Com Network (Holding) Corp., the parent company of
the Chalk Group.  Subsidiaries of Chalk.com Network
(Holding) Corp. are as follows:

Chalk.com Network Corporation
Chalk Productions Incorporated
Chalk Holdings Inc.
New Century Digital Broadcasting Corporation

Chalk.Com Network (Holding) Corp. and Chalk.com Network
Corporation were incorporated in Delaware, USA.  Chalk
Productions Incorporated and New Century Digital Broadcasting
Corporation were incorporated in British Columbia, Canada.
Chalk Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Canada.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EC01-119-000; Docket No. EL01-91-000]

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Millennium Power Partners, L.P., Athens Generating Company, L.P. (Athens), Covert Generating Company, LLC, Harquahala Generating Company, LLC (collectively, the Subsidiaries), and GenHoldings I LLC (GenHoldings) filed with the Commission: (1) A request by the Subsidiaries and GenHoldings for Commission authorization under section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) for an intra-corporate reorganization whereby the Subsidiaries will become indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of their newly-formed affiliate, GenHoldings; and (2) a request by Athens, on behalf of the Greene County Industrial Development Agency, for the Commission to find that it is not a “public utility” under section 201(f) of the FPA.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before July 6, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-16373  Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
William M. BAILEY, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 16-9395.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
When: 1/14/2011, 2:00p.m. 

Rulemakings: Definitions 

Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Registration 

Attendees: 

Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 

H. Rodgin Cohen 

CFTC 

J. Virgil Mattingly 

Kenneth M. Raisler 

Andrea R. Tokheim 

DCIO Ananda Radhakrishnan 

Barbara S. Gold 

Chris Cummings 

Elizabeth Miller 

OGC Mark Fajfar 

Gloria Clement 

Lee Ann Duffy 

Carl Kennedy 

0 IA Jacqueline Mesa 

Natalie Markman Radhakrishnan 

Counsel represents U.S. banks that own foreign entities engaging in swap activities 

primarily outside of the U.S. Known as "Edge Act Corporations," these subsidiaries ofU.S. 

banks are chartered by the Federal Reserve, typically own foreign banks or have branches in 

foreign countries, and are heavily regulated by the Federal Reserve, as well as the home country 

regulator wherever the foreign bank is located. Edge Act Corporations engage in swap activity 

almost exclusively outside of the U.S., but counsel described several instances where a small 

amount of U.S. swap activity is also necessary. This group was particularly concerned with how 

"de minimis" swap activity would be defined, i.e., in what amount ofU.S. swap activity could a 

person engage and remain outside of the swap dealer definition. Counsel further explained that 

the U.S. activities of Edge Act foreign banks are strictly limited by law, such that for any U.S. 

activity, there must be a "direct and clearly identifiable connection to an international 

transaction." 

Counsel expressed the view that Edge Act foreign banks should be able to engage in the 

minimal amount of U.S. swap activity required to run their businesses, which would be a very 

small percentage of their overall swap activities, without coming within the swap dealer 

definition and having to register as a swap dealer. Counsel also questioned how the CFTC 

would be determining which banks were swap dealers and whether that determination would 

count only U.S. swaps or global swap activities, or include internal back-to-baclc transactions. In 

suppmi of their position, counsel emphasized that Edge Act Corporations were established after 

World War I, are a historical pati of U.S. banking regulations, and the Dodd-Frank Act did 

nothing to change the policies applicable to them. Furthermore, counsel stated, Edge Act 

Corporations are clearly not designed as a tool to evade the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. 
At the conclusion of the meeting, CFTC staff thanked counsel for presenting this 

information to it. Staff suggested that counsel submit a comment letter explaining their clients' 

situation, addressing the extraterritoriality reach of the Dodd-Frank Act to their clients, and 

providing their suggestions on how Dodd-Frank regulations should apply to Edge Act 

Corporations. Counsel agreed with this recommendation.
Carl Armstead JEFFERSON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7422.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6291

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AUBREY VALDEZ MOTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:08-cr-00165-JFA-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: July 2, 2013

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aubrey Valdez Moton, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aubrey Valdez Moton appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

no abuse of discretion by the district court. Moton argues that 

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 2010)

authorizes the modification of a career offender’s sentence 

where an overrepresentation departure was granted. However, 

Moton’s sentence is distinguishable from the situation in Munn, 

because the Guidelines range after the departure did not fall 

squarely within the crack cocaine Guidelines range. Also, the 

Sentencing Commission has abrogated the ruling in Munn by 

defining “applicable guideline range" as "the guideline range 

that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history 

category determined . . . before consideration of any departure 

provision.” USSG App. C, Amend. 759 (2011). Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Moton, No. 3:08-cr-00165-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2013). 

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>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures
                    Fund 2, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0000851786
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          4,794,134

<SECURITIES>                    17,038,399

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                21,832,533

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  21,832,533

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,157,648

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      20,674,885

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    21,832,533

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,869,569

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,030,775

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (161,206)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (1.69)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
In Re Renee BAILEY, et al., petitioners.

No. 16-1464.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
II-00298

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Martha Schwartz <activist@cruzio.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:16 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Martha Schwartz

130 Tree Frog Lane

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury
 DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2001 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) *OMB Number:*
                     1545-0122. *Form Number:*
                     IRS Form 1118, Schedule I and Schedule J. *Type of Review:*
                     Revision. Title: Foreign Tax Credit-Corporations. *Description:*
                     Form 1118 and separate Schedules I and J are used by domestic and foreign corporations to claim a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries. The IRS uses Form 1118 and related schedules to determine if the corporation has computed the foreign tax credit correctly. *Respondents:*
                     Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*
                     30,000. *Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:* Form of schedule
Recordkeeping
Learning about the law or the form
Preparing and sending the form to the IRSForm 1118
97 hr., 19 min
17 hr., 51 min
21 hr., 9 min.Schedule I (Form 1118)
9hr., 19 min
1 hr., 0 min
1 hr., 11 min.Schedule J (Form 1118)
106 hr., 25 min
1 hr., 12 min
2 hr., 58 min.
 *Frequency of Response:*
                     Annually. *Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*
                     4,113,889 hours. *Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service,Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.* *OMB Reviewer:*
                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Lois K. Holland, Departmental Reports, Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 01-16209 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P