alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LONNIE E. LARSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-16388

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00308-SOMBMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 11, 2013** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Lonnie E. Larson appeals from the district court’s judgment in his action

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) arising from work-related

injuries and the denial of worker’s compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction

FILED

FEB 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
11-16388

2

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s

rulings on a motion for leave to amend, Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092,

1094 (9th Cir. 2010), and a motion to continue summary judgment to allow for

further discovery, Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100

(9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Larson’s motion for

leave to file a fourth amended complaint because Larson failed to allege the

elements of a retaliation claim under the ADA despite multiple opportunities to do

so, and further leave to amend would have been futile. See 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)

(prohibiting retaliation for opposing a practice deemed unlawful under the ADA,

or for participating in an investigation or other proceeding related to the ADA); 

Gordon, 627 F.3d at 1094 (no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend where

amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Larson’s motion to

continue summary judgment to allow discovery on certain of his claims in the first

amended complaint because Larson failed to identify specific facts sought in

discovery that would preclude summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); 

Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1100-01 (summary judgment need not be continued to allow
11-16388

3

plaintiff to receive deposition transcripts where plaintiff failed to identify any facts

expected to be in the transcripts that would preclude summary judgment).

Larson’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to accord

him deference as a pro se litigant, to allow him to conduct discovery before

denying him further leave to amend his complaint, or to properly construe his

claim for alleged discrimination under the ADA are unpersuasive.

We do not address arguments that Larson waived on appeal, including with

respect to the magistrate judge’s denial of a motion to compel discovery as to

which Larson failed to file any objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
----

Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-371/05)

(2006/C 10/17)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by X. Lewis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----

(1)  OJ L 209, p. 1.

----
§ 1200.40 Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan. ( a ) The State's Highway Safety Plan for a fiscal year and the State's authority to incur costs under that Highway Safety Plan shall expire on the last day of the fiscal year.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each State shall submit a final voucher which satisfies the requirements of § 1200.33 within 90 days after the expiration of the State's Highway Safety Plan as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. The final voucher constitutes the final financial reconciliation for each fiscal year.
( c ) The Approving Official may extend the time period to submit a final voucher only in extraordinary circumstances. States shall submit a written request for an extension describing the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate an extension. The approval of any such request for extension shall be in writing, shall specify the new deadline for submitting the final voucher, and shall be signed by the Approving Official.
#### § 140.611 Determination of bond retirement.

Division Administrators shall be responsible for the prompt review of the SHA's records to determine that bonds issued to finance the projects and for which reimbursement has been made, including eligible bond interest expense, have been retired pursuant to the State's certification required by § 140.610(a), and that such action is documented in the project file.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 21, 2012

FROM: Colleen McKaughan

TO: File

SUBJECT: Meeting with Nevada Department of Environmental Quality (NDEP) 

Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division, and Thomas Webb, Air 

Division Planning Office met with NDEP officials, Mike Elges, Rob Bamford, 

Vinson Guthreau, and their attorney, Jasmine Mehta, on May 4, 2012.

EPA and NDEP briefly discussed the hearings the day/night before and the issues 

that were raised. The turnout was better than expected at both hearings. NDEP was 

looking for clarification on next steps for both EPA’s final action on Reid Gardner 

and replacing the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) with a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision. EPA clarified that the FIP was very narrow so any replacement 

SIP could also be very narrow. We all acknowledged that EPA would be 

responding to comments before taking final action, and the content of the comments 

is yet unknown. The close of the public comment period is June 4th.
# Official Journal C 320/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.320.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 320 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5523 October 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.320.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 320

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5523 October 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 320/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 320/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0697. DEONTA DAVID v. THE STATE.

In 2021, Deonta David was indicted on multiple charges including murder.

David, who is representing himself, has filed in several pre-trial motions. On

October 30, 2023, the trial court entered a “Second Omnibus Order” on David’s

motions. David then filed this appeal.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases in

which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.”Ga.Const. of 1983, Art.

VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death may be imposed for the crimes of

felony murder and malice murder, jurisdiction lies in the Supreme Court. See OCGA

§ 16-5-1 (c), (e) (1); State v. Murray, 286 Ga. 258, 259 (1) 687 S.E.2d 790 (2009)

(where the murder count of an indictment remains pending, jurisdiction of an appeal

from a pre-conviction order lies in the Supreme Court); see alsoState v.Thornton, 253

Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer to the

Supreme Court “all cases in which either a sentence of death or of life imprisonment

has been imposed upon conviction of murder, and all pre-conviction appeals in

murder cases”), overruled on other grounds, Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179, 205 (III) (C)

(i) (824 SE2d 265) (2019).

January 24, 2024
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/24/2024
<PAGE>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT
                   INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
                                 DELAWARE


           NUMBER                                           SHARES

           [SEAL]            ZUG ACQUISITION                [SEAL]
      -----------------        CORPORATION              -------------


       AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 20,000,000 SHARES - PAR VALUE: $.001


THIS CERTIFIES THAT



IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF


              SHARE OF ZUG ACQUISITION CORPORATION COMMON STOCK

TRANSFERABLE ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION IN PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED
ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED. THIS
CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID UNTIL COUNTERSIGNED BY THE TRANSFER AGENT AND
REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRAR.

WITNESS THE FACSIMILE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND THE FACSIMILE SIGNATURES OF
ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.


DATED:

   /s/ Candace Beaver           [SEAL]          /s/ Kevin DeVito
------------------------                   -------------------------
         SECRETARY                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### §543g. Authorization of appropriations

In addition to other amounts available for such purposes, effective October 1, 1985, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 543 to 543h of this title.

(Pub. L. 98–425, title III, §308, Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1638.)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.11


                  AMENDMENT OF NOTE AND STOCK PLEDGE AGREEMENT


Whereas, Broadbase Software, Inc., successor to Broadbase Information Systems,
Inc., (the "Company") and Mark Kremer (the "Debtor") entered into a Secured
Non-Recourse Promissory Note (the "Note") and an associated Stock Pledge
Agreement, each dated April 29, 1998, and

Whereas, the parties now desire to amend certain provisions of such agreements;

Therefore, the parties hereby agree to amend the Note and the Stock Pledge
Agreement, as of December 2, 1999, as follows:

Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended to read as follows:

     1.   OBLIGATION. For value received, Mark Kremer (the "Debtor") promises
     to pay to Broadbase Software, Inc., (the "Company"), or order, no later
     than the earlier of

          (i)  April 29, 1999, or at Debtor's election, in writing to the
               Company, by April 29, 2000 or April 29, 2001, or

          (ii) ten days after Debtor first sells any common stock of the Company

     (the "Loan Term") the principal sum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars
     ($400,000), together with interest on the principal hereof from the date
     hereof at the rate of five and fifty-one one hundredths percent (5.51%),
     which rate is not less than the minimum established pursuant to 1274(d) of
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as of the date hereof;
     provided, however, that the rate at which interest shall accrue on unpaid
     principal under this Note will not exceed the highest rate permitted by
     applicable law.

Section 2 of the Note is hereby amended to read as follows:

     2.   SECURITY. Payment of this Note was originally secured by an interest
     in 1,282,500 shares of the Company's common stock (the "Originally Pledged
     Shares") under a Stock Pledge Agreement between the parties dated April 29,
     1998; the Company hereby agrees to release 1,082,500 of the Originally
     Pledged Shares, leaving 200,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock (the
     "Shares") securing this Note.

The parties acknowledge that Debtor has previously given written notice to
extend the payment due date of the Note until April 29, 2000, and the Debtor
hereby elects to extend the payment due date of the Note until April 29, 2001,
unless otherwise earlier due pursuant to the terms of the Note.

The Company hereby agrees to release 1,082,500 of the Shares pledged pursuant
to the Stock Pledge Agreement; as of this date the Collateral under the Stock
Pledge Agreement shall consist of Broadbase common stock certificate BSW 0050
in the amount of 200,000 shares.

Agreed:


/s/ MARK KREMER
-----------------------------------
Mark Kremer, Debtor


For Broadbase Software


/s/ CHUCK BAY
-----------------------------------
Chuck Bay, President & COO
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 6, 2019

No. 04-19-00209-CV

SCHERTZ BANCSHARES CORPORATION, Individually and d/b/a Schertz Bank & Trust, 

Schertz Bank & Trust, and Mustang Valley Estates Homeowners Association,

Appellants

v.

Scott BURRIS, Ashley Burris, Wayne Burris, Lee Burris, Kenneth Davis, Cece Davis, Amy 

Wilson, Mike Wilson, Daryl Green, Cathy Green, Ken Helgren, Michele Helgren, Robert 

Hudson, Cliff Jackson, Mamie Jackson, William Merrill, Tonya Spells, Quinton Perry, Angie 

Perry, Kenneth Shields, Tamara Shields, Latoya Siples, Clinton Siples, And Michelle Siples,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-1512-CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pursuant to section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Rule 

28.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we GRANT appellants’ petition for permission 

to appeal from an interlocutory order. A notice of appeal is deemed to have been filed on the 

date of this order and the appeal will proceed as an accelerated appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

28.3(k).

We order the Guadalupe County District Clerk and the court reporter to file, respectively, 

the clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this court on or before May 16, 2019. 

We order the clerk of this court to file a copy of this order with the District Clerk of 

Guadalupe County, Texas. See id. We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of 

this order on the trial court, the court reporter, and all counsel. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                       389
<INVENTORY>                                      3,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,599
<PP&E>                                           2,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                     951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,575
<BONDS>                                          3,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         19
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,589
<SALES>                                         18,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,644
<CGS>                                           14,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (30)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,351)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,351)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)


</TABLE>
§ 973.214 Indian lands congestion management system (CMS). ( a ) For purposes of this section, congestion means the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference. The BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the tribes, shall develop criteria to determine when a CMS is to be implemented for a specific federally or tribally owned IRR transportation system that is experiencing congestion. Either the tribe or the BIA, in consultation with the tribe, shall consider the results of the CMS in the development of the IRR transportation plan and the IRRTIP, when selecting strategies for implementation that provide the most efficient and effective use of existing and future transportation facilities to alleviate congestion and enhance mobility.
( b ) In addition to the requirements provided in § 973.204, the CMS must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) For those BIA or tribal transportation systems that require a CMS, consideration shall be given to strategies that reduce private automobile travel and improve existing transportation system efficiency. Approaches may include the use of alternate mode studies and implementation plans as components of the CMS.
( 2 ) A CMS will: ( i ) Identify and document measures for congestion (e.g., level of service);
( ii ) Identify the causes of congestion;
( iii ) Include processes for evaluating the cost and effectiveness of alternative strategies;
( iv ) Identify the anticipated benefits of appropriate alternative traditional and nontraditional congestion management strategies;
( v ) Determine methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the multi-modal transportation system; and
( vi ) Appropriately consider the following example categories of strategies, or combinations of strategies for each area: ( A ) Transportation demand management measures;
( B ) Traffic operational improvements;
( C ) Public transportation improvements;
( D ) ITS technologies; and
( E ) Additional system capacity.
§ 810.306 Reservation of funds. ( a ) The FHWA Administrator shall review the State request, determine whether sufficient Federal-aid urban system funds are available, and notify the State highway agency and the UMTA Administrator of the reservation of funds.
( b ) The apportioned funds reserved for the proposed project under paragraph (a) of this section shall remain available for obligation unless the FHWA Administrator is notified that the application has been disapproved by the UMTA Administrator, or unless the responsible local officials in whose jurisdiction the project is to be located and the State highway agency jointly request the withdrawal of the project application.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                     THE HERTZ CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS
                          TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)
                     (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EXCEPT RATIOS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Years Ended December 31,
                                                                     ------------------------
                                                  2000          1999           1998            1997         1996
                                                  ----          ----           ----            ----         ----
<S>                                           <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>
Income before income taxes ...............    $  580,864     $  560,393     $  465,392     $  343,270    $  256,569
Interest expense .........................       428,387        353,516        317,756        316,038       309,249
Portion of rent estimated to represent the
  interest factor ........................       104,886         90,463         78,435         72,752        69,188
                                              ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------    ----------
Earnings before income taxes and fixed
  charges ................................    $1,114,137     $1,004,372     $  861,583     $  732,060    $  635,006
                                              ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========    ==========
Interest expense (including capitalized
  interest) ..............................    $  431,308     $  355,309     $  318,967     $  316,536    $  309,843
Portion of rent estimated to represent the
  interest factor ........................       104,886         90,463         78,435         72,752        69,188
                                              ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------    ----------

Fixed charges ............................    $  536,194     $  445,772     $  397,402     $  389,288    $  379,031
                                              ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========    ==========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .......           2.1            2.3            2.2            1.9           1.7
                                              ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========    ==========
</TABLE>