ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE [JS-6]
DOLLY GEE, District JudgePage 2
STIPULATION
Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants KAI WIN CHUANG and BOTTLEMATE, INC. and Defendants/Counter-claimants LINSHIANG LIU and MORGAN CONTAINER CORP., filed on July 30, 2010, the above-captioned action is dismissed in its entirety, including all claims and counterclaims, with prejudice, each party bearing their own costs and fees, and waiving all rights of appeal.
The parties have acknowledged that in the event there is a breach of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs may open a new case for the express purpose of entering the consent judgment against defendants. Defendants have further acknowledged that this dismissal with prejudice does not waive plaintiffs' rights under the Settlement Agreement and consent judgment and defendants acknowledge the dismissal may not be used as a defense to either filing of a new action, or entering the consent judgment for defendant's failure to complete the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
t has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Id.
Sadler complains that the factual basis presented at rearraignment merely tracked the language of the charging statutes and the jury instructions and provided no information about the specific actions committed by Sadler or his codefendants. The allegation that Sadler's conduct satisfied the elements of the offense is sufficient to support a finding by the district court "that [he] committed the charged criminal offense." United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Sadler has not shown that the lack of a detailed factual basis at his rearraignment affected his substantial rights; he has not alleged that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the absence of specific information in the factual basis. See Puckett, 129 S.Ct. at 1429; United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.