alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Calvin ROACH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of ARIZONA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-16178.

D.C. No. CV-04-00001-FRZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Calvin Roach, Sierra Vista, AZ, pro se.

Marjorie Susan Beeklund, Esq., Kristin A. Green, Esq., AGAZ—Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Stacey A. Roseberry, Esq., Lesley Maura Lukach, Esq., Pima County Attorney’s Office, Tucson, AZ, Britt Wesley Hanson, Esq., Cochise County Attorney, Bisbee, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Calvin Roach appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his marital dissolution proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,*334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

Because Roach’s complaint asserted claims relating to the allegedly erroneous rulings of the Cochise County Superior Court and the Arizona Court of Appeals, and sought to have the state court judgments vacated, the district court properly dismissed his action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. *See Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (“It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”).

*154Roach’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Roach’s motion to file one combined reply brief is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* 

### Pursuant to 5 TH

### C IR 

### . 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH 

### C IR 

### . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 99-20694

_____________________ MICHAEL J. SUTTON; JOHN WILEY MITCHELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-83-CV-6674)

_______________________________________________________

September 19, 2000 Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### In this Federal Torts Claims Act case that claims malicious prosecution under Texas law, the district judge carefully considered the evidence, spelled out the

### 2

ineptness and misconduct of the postal inspector, and attempted to bring a just closure to the dispute. However, the court was unable to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs were innocent of the charges made against them. Because that finding is necessary to support the judgment, it cannot stand. From the bench and in its findings and conclusions, the court states that lack of conviction leaves plaintiffs entitled to a presumption of innocence. While that relieves them of criminal guilt, it does not prove malicious prosecution. Texas law requires a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution claim to establish innocence. See Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co ., 952 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. 1997). Because plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving innocence, we reverse the judgment and render a take-nothing judgment for the United States. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND RENDERED FOR THE UNITED STATES.
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-40406

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EARL WILEY ARNOLD, also known as Earl Pitts, Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:97-CR-62-1)

_______________________________________________________ April 9, 1999 Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Earl Wiley Arnold has appealed his conviction and the 24-month prison sentence he received on his guilty plea of having failed to create and maintain records pertaining to performers portrayed in sexually explicit photographs, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257(f)(1). We AFFIRM. Arnold contends, principally, that the district court erred by applying the sentencing guidelines to reach a sentence in excess of twenty-four months. The district court was correct in applying the guidelines to Arnold’s plea of guilty and accompanying plea agreement.2

Arnold pleaded guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257(f)(1), failing to maintain records of performers in photographs of actual sexually explicit conduct – as defined by § 2256(2)(A-D). Guideline § 2G2.5 refers to § 2G2.1 for the base offense level if the lack of records is to conceal causing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct. The plea agreement provided: All parties understand that this plea of guilty is conditional upon the Sentencing Guidelines calculations in this case providing a term of imprisonment of at least two (2) years for this offense and the related conduct which involves sexually exploiting minors by the production of sexually explicit material in accordance with § 2G2.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Arnold also waived appeal except for sentencing guideline determination. The district court made no error in its sentencing guideline determinations that would affect Arnold’s sentence. AFFIRMED.
# C_2008091EN.01001201.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4932 — Leoni/Valeo CSB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/04)

On 17 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4932. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4932. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# L_2007333EN.01006001.xml

| 19.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 333/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 333/60

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1502/2007

of 18 December 2007

on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2007 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 812/2007 for pigmeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 812/2007 of 11 July 2007 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for pigmeat allocated to the United States of America (2), in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 812/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of pigmeat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 812/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of pigmeat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2007 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2008 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2007 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2008 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications covered by the quota with serial number 09.4170 have not been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 812/2007, to be added to the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2008, are 1 843 025 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 December 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2). Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 July 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 182, 12.7.2007, p. 7.

2

---
EXHIBIT 24.1--POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW  ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  each  person  whose  signature
appears  below  constitutes  and  appoints  Steven G. Mihaylo and Kurt R. Kneip,
jointly  and  severally,   his   attorneys-in-fact,   each  with  the  power  of
substitution,  for him in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this
Report on Form  10-K,  and to file the same,  with  exhibits  thereto  and other
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact,  or his
substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
this  Report has been  signed  below by the  following  persons on behalf of the
Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

   Signature                            Title                         Date

/S/ Steven G. Mihaylo               Chairman and Chief            March 29, 1996
------------------------
Steven G. Mihaylo                   Executive Officer

/S/ Kurt R. Kneip                   Vice President and            March 29, 1996
------------------------
Kurt R. Kneip                       Chief Financial Officer

/S/ Gary D. Edens                   Director                      March 29, 1996
------------------------
Gary D. Edens

/S/ Maurice H. Esperseth            Director                       March 29,1996
------------------------
Maurice H. Esperseth

/S/ C. Roland Haden                 Director                      March 29, 1996
------------------------
C. Roland Haden

/S/ Norman Stout                    Director                      March 29, 1996
------------------------
Norman Stout

/S/ Kathleen R. Wade                Director                      March 29, 1996
------------------------
Kathleen R. Wade
#### STATE v. WALLACE

No. 20 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 750.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 31 January 1977. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 31 January 1977.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5550 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5550

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to include a definition of 
 ``loss of use'' for purposes of evaluating disabilities and providing 
  adapted housing and automobiles under the laws administered by the 
                     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2010

 Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to include a definition of 
 ``loss of use'' for purposes of evaluating disabilities and providing 
  adapted housing and automobiles under the laws administered by the 
                     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF ``LOSS OF USE'' FOR PURPOSES OF LAWS 
              ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Section 1101 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
            ``(5) The term `loss of use' with respect to an extremity 
        means a condition in which no effective function of the 
        extremity remains based on the extent and pattern of nerve or 
        other impairment that directly affects--
                    ``(A) in the case of a hand, the acts of grasping, 
                and manipulation;
                    ``(B) in the case of a foot, balance and 
                propulsion; or
                    ``(C) in the case of any other extremity, the basic 
                acts associated with use of the extremity.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2007210EN.01000601.xml

| 10.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 210/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 210/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 949/2007

of 9 August 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 38/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 8 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 8 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 8 August 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 shall be 471,16 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 August 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 9 August 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 11, 18.1.2007, p. 4. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 203/2007 (OJ L 61, 28.2.2006, p. 3).

2

---
Order entered July 22 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 00211
- CR MITCHELL, CHRISTEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. F10
- 61101
- U



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant Christen Mitchell’s July 18, 2013 “Motion for Release of Oral Argument Recording and Transcript and to Extend Time to File Motion for Rehearing.”
We GRANT IN PART appellant’s motion and ORD ER that any motion for rehearing is to be
filed on or before August 29, 2013 . In all other respects appellant’s motion is DENIED

.
/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-Q FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,813
<SECURITIES>                                     1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,898
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,342
<INVENTORY>                                      2,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,559
<PP&E>                                          55,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,586
<BONDS>                                         45,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,821
<SALES>                                         54,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,165
<CGS>                                           48,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   453
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,464)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of

Herself and All Others Similarly Situated

and the General Public,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CLOROX COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

_______________________

SONIA NEWMAN,

 Objector-Appellant.

No. 11-55136

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB

MEMORANDUM*

SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of

Herself and All Others Similarly Situated

and the General Public,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CLOROX COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-55150

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB

FILED

MAY 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

_____________________

OMAR RIVERO,

 Objector - Appellant.

SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of

Herself and All Others Similarly Situated

and the General Public,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CLOROX COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

____________________

SAM P. CANNATA,

 Objector - Appellant.

No. 11-55189

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cathy Ann Bencivengo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 10, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
3

Objectors Sonia Newman, Omar Rivero, and Sam P. Cannata appeal the

district court’s class certification in this class action brought by lead Plaintiff

Shawndee Hartless against Defendant Clorox Company. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in certifying the settlement class. See Parra v. Bashas’, Inc.,

536 F.3d 975, 977–78 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating the standard of review). On this

record, the court was not required to divide the nationwide class into sub-classes,

as the Objectors wish.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, William T. Freeman, Chief Executive Officer
and interim Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2009 (the Report), hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    WILLIAM T. FREEMAN                                  
|William T. Freeman                                         
|Chief Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial
Officer

Dated: August 5, 2009