alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD HILLS; IVAN RENE MOORE, 

individually, and as the Executor of the 

Estate of Ima Moore, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

INDYMAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, 

INC.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56599 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04826-RGK-PJW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Hills and Ivan Rene Moore appeal pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law violations related to 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellants’ request for oral 

argument, set forth in their opening and reply briefs, is denied.

FILED

JUL 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-56599 

a mortgage loan, foreclosure, and subsequent title transfers. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the statute 

of limitations and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 

382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ action because it is timebarred and appellants failed to plead facts demonstrating that equitable tolling 

should apply. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 

1045-46 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal standard for equitable tolling); Collier v. City of 

Pasadena, 191 Cal. Rptr. 681, 685 (Ct. App. 1983) (test under California law for 

equitable tolling of limitations period).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants an 

opportunity to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes, 

656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend 

may be denied where amendment would be futile); Kendall v. Visa USA, Inc., 518 

F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008) (amendment is futile where a plaintiff “fail[s] to 

state what additional facts [he] would plead if given leave to amend, or what 

additional discovery [he] would conduct to discover such facts”).

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in 
3 17-56599 

the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. 

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
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 Dragon International Group Corp.
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David Wu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     1. The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.


February 12, 2008


                                                   By:/s/ David Wu
                                                   -------------------
                                                     David Wu, CEO
HL
State Land No. <2009>0091





Land
      Use Right Holder:
            Heilongjiang
      Lanxi Sunrise Linen Textile
Industry


Co.
      Ltd


Location:
            Second
      Neighborhood, Xinli Street, Lanxi


Land
      No.:
            205


Map
      No.:
            L-52-61-(13)


Land
      Type (Purpose of Use:
            Industrial
      enterprise


Price
Acquired:


Land
      Use Right Type:
            Transfer


Termination
      Date:
            December
      29, 2054


Area
      under the Use Right:
            1495.55m2


Area
      of Sole Use:
            _____
      m2


Area
      Shared:
            _____
      m2





Pursuant to the legal provisions of the
“People's Republic of China Constitution,” “People's Republic of China Land
Management Law” and “People's Republic of China Urban Real Estate Property
Management Law,” the land use right of which the holder is applying for
registration has been reviewed and verified and this certificate is hereby
issued in order to protect the legitimate interests of the land use right
holder.





Lanxi
County People’s Government (seal)


(imprint of Lanxi County People’s
Government Land Registration Special Seal)





April 24,
2009








Records:


April 24,
2009:


This certificate is a replacement as
the "Records" space on the original certificate is filled full.  The
date of issuance of the original certificate is January 18, 2005.





(Copy of
the description of the land in question attached)





Agency
      of Registration:
            Lanxi
      County State Land Resources Bureau


April 24,
2009





Certificate
      Issuing Authority:
              People's
      Republic of China Ministry of Land and
                  Resources  (Land
      Certificate Management Special
  Seal)




No.
013767331
No. 51545.

#### Protests 120157-K, etc., of Associated Merchandise Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23.02


                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
CSK Auto Corporation relating to the CSK Auto Corporation 1999 Employee Stock
Option Plan on Form S-8 (Registration No.333-________) of our report dated April
2, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of CSK Auto
Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 1999 and February 1, 1998, and
for each of the three years in the period ended January 31, 1999.




PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

August 27, 1999
Federal Housing Finance Agency

Marcus S. Williams – Principal Advisor

Office of the Director

Marcus Williams has over 15 years of public and private sector experience in risk 

management and bank regulation. Williams joined FHFA as a Principal Advisor 

in the Office of the Director in 2023 advising on a range of strategic, operational, 

and financial matters. Prior to joining FHFA, Williams worked for Truist 

Securities, where he managed risk and compliance programs within the 

Corporate and Investment Banking Line of Business. Earlier in his career, 

Williams held various leadership roles in management consulting and banking 

with Deloitte & Touche, LLP; Promontory Financial Group, LLC; and United

Services Automobile Association (USAA) Federal Savings Bank where he provided clients and company 

leadership with strategic and tactical subject matter advice for risk-related issues and regulatory inquiries from 

the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. Williams brings extensive experience in strategic planning and execution, risk management, 

operational excellence, and program management. Williams is a United States Air Force Veteran and holds a 

B.S. in Finance and Insurance from Old Dominion University.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

AUSTIN ‘, 

GlillA‘D 0. MANN 

l -î .RIUL 

,:;r:1 6, 1939. 
Mr. Gilbert Smith, April 6, 1939, i'ace 2 

extended the rule that even where there ls a specific 

exoeptlon to the rule of' sore than one office of emoluwnt as in tfila 0898, cr where an office does not pay 

for its servlces to the holder thereof, that where a 

pereon seeks to hold more than one civil oftlae end the 

duties of tP,e t.we afrlcef8 are inooapatlble, that suoh 

a parsor; cannct hold both oitices, and the anoeptanae 

of the latter, or later In point of time, is considered 

a raeano7 or re8Qnatlon of the oiiioe rormerl7 held. 

4pl7l1g theme rules, the ooart.8 hare hold Ln 

ewe of Lucre rsi State, 63 SW Znd 696 that the jwtloa 

oi the peaoa can also ba a reoorder ln the Oorpor~tlon 

,coert cir the olty as Artlole 16, Seation 60 Of tile. 

State Qooetittttion doe8 not apply to ju8tloe8 of tka 

*a88 and the buttis er the two ~ffloes are not iaoom- 

.pat$ble ona to tlm other. Ercm thou&a theI~two ofi 

ln ..tha lnqdry at hand, m&yor OS the OltiJ .OS~ 4luon aR4 

j*tloe of the pea00 oil proshot Eo. OnCr oft .,;Taikm Caimtr,, 

Texas, ma7 be both olril &Vi&s8 of. emolument 7et thla.. 

~XWiSiOll Of the &U38tik~tiOIl d-8 Wt wp17 to jWtiW8 

of.,:he peaoe, uhtire ena psr8oa oOea@ hOl&.both~ OfiiOW 

$a,‘ti;a dutties of tlae 6ame, uory iaaom~atibla OM +o 

* 

Though the' llna wblolx biatlngal8he8~~oompa~lble 

aria Iioorapatlbla datfee Of 8OpcWet.e Offi 18 8aPlCttiu8 

dir and dlffloult to dl8tlqumi yet w are Of the oplnIon that the two oftioe8 OS ra7Or and jU8tiOO Of the 

peaoe l re,not 1naaPpatlbXe one ,to tha other and that the 

aama person oan holU both effXoe8 at the lraae tf.ma. .;' 

Offloes are lnaompetible ubem t~::.d?@iO8 

'are or ~a7 be lnaonslstent or ocmfllotlnng, bat,net jhsra 

their duties ara wholly unrelated, Or %n no maiiaar Ineon818t8nt and are newr in oontliot, and whera neither Offioer fe aoooantable or.undar the dqainlon Of; or m&ordinate 

to, the other, or ha8 am7 right or pow8r to ~nterfexbrith 

the other in the perfomaaoe Of any d&7. Stat4 VIIXartln, 51 SI 2nd 815, Kugle ts. Cleurose IntIepJn4ent 

Sohool Dlstrlot, 50 SW Find 3?6, Thomas vs. Abernath7 County 

Line Independent School Nstrlat, P;90 SW 158, Ter. J’tu. 
0. Gilbert Smith, April 6, 1939, Page 3 

Vol. 34, page 951. 

In vler of the foregoing authorities, you are 

respectfully s&vised t&t it is the opinion of this Departsent t2at a citizen of Anson can hold both the offloee 

Of mayor find jUBtia0 Of the peace Of preOinCt one Of Jonee 

County 6t the aeme tlm. 

Trusting that the foregoing anawera year lnrltllry, we remain 

Vary truly your8 

Ardell Vllllcuu 

ii88i8tlh
No. 51870.

#### B. R. Anderson & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 30134-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of imitation gut similar in all material respects to that the classification of which was involved in *Bush*v. *United States*(34 C. C. P. A. 17, C. A. D. 338). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
H. Con. Res. 344 Agreed to June 28, 2000

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used

on July 13, 2000, for a ceremony to present the Congressional

Gold Medal to Father Theodore Hesburgh. Physical preparations

for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such

conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
Document

CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD BE COMPETITIVELY HARMFUL IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. OMITTED INFORMATION HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH ASTERISKS



FIRST ADDENDUM TO LICENSE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENT


This Addendum (the "Addendum") to the License and Collaboration Agreement, is made as of June 9, 2020, by and between NOVOCURE LIMITED ("NVCR") and ZAI LAB (SHANGHAI) Co., LTD. ("Zai"). Each of the foregoing, a "Party" and together, the "Parties".


WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into that certain License and Collaboration Agreement, dated September 10, 2018 (the "Agreement"); Unless otherwise specified herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement; and


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Addendum, the Parties agree as follows:


1.Amendment to Schedule 1.55. The Specifications attached as Exhibit A hereto, are hereby added to Schedule 1.55 of the Agreement.


2.Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth under the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


3.This Addendum is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.6 of the Agreement, is effective as of the date hereof and shall become an integral part of the Agreement.


[signatures page next]







CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD BE COMPETITIVELY HARMFUL IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. OMITTED INFORMATION HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH ASTERISKS



IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Addendum to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date first above written.


Novocure GmbH                Zai Lab (Shanghai) Co., Ltd


By: /s/ Wilco Groenhuysen            By: /s/ Tao Fu            


Name: Wilco Groenhuysen        Name: Tao Fu            


Title: Managing Director            Title: President and COO    









CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD BE COMPETITIVELY HARMFUL IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. OMITTED INFORMATION HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH ASTERISKS



Exhibit A


Specifications


[***]
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 37

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1999

Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning anti-Semitic statements made by members of the

Duma of the Russian Federation.

Whereas the world has seen in the 20th century the disastrous results of ethnic, religious, and racial intolerance;

Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation is on

record, through obligations freely accepted as a participating state of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as pledging to ‘‘clearly and

equivocally condemn totalitarianism, racial and ethnic hatred, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and discrimination

against anyone * * *’’;

Whereas at two public rallies in October 1998, Communist

Party member of the Duma, Albert Makashov, blamed

‘‘the Yids’’ for Russia’s current problems;

Whereas in November 1998, attempts by members of the

Russian Duma to formally censure Albert Makashov were

blocked by members of the Communist Party;
2

HCON 37 RFS

Whereas in December 1998, the chairman of the Duma Security Committee and Communist Party member, Viktor

Ilyukhin, blamed President Yeltsin’s ‘‘Jewish entourage’’

for alleged ‘‘genocide against the Russian people’’;

Whereas in response to the public outcry over the abovenoted anti-Semitic statements, Communist Party chairman Gennadi Zyuganov claimed in December 1998 that

such statements were a result of ‘‘confusion’’ between Zionism and ‘‘the Jewish question’’; and

Whereas during the Soviet era, the Communist Party leadership regularly used ‘‘anti-Zionist campaigns’’ as an excuse to persecute and discriminate against Jews in the

Soviet Union: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) condemns anti-Semitic statements made by

4 members of the Russian Duma;

5 (2) commends actions taken by members of the

6 Russian Duma to condemn anti-Semitic statements

7 made by Duma members;

8 (3) commends President Yeltsin and other

9 members of the Russian Government for con10 demning anti-Semitic statements made by Duma

11 members; and

12 (4) reiterates its firm belief that peace and jus13 tice cannot be achieved as long as governments and
3

HCON 37 RFS

1 legislatures promote policies based upon anti-Semi2 tism, racism, and xenophobia.

Passed the House of Representatives March 23,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-143052) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-142978, 333-133926 and No. 333-126614) pertaining to the CryoCor, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, 2000 Stock Option Plan, 2005 Non-EmployeeDirectors’ Stock Option Plan and 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated March 19, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CryoCor, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2007. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 19, 2008
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 the Company.
 Date: March 31, 2006
    By:

    
    /s/ THOMAS J. STULTZ.Name:
    Thomas J. StultzTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
| date    | Corporate Equity | Real Estate | Debt Securities | Other |
|---------|------------------|-------------|-----------------|-------|
| 2015:Q1 | 0.6              | 0.45        | 0.06            | 0.75  |
| 2015:Q2 | 0.07             | 0.49        | -0.27           | 0.33  |
| 2015:Q3 | -2               | 0.44        | 0.23            | 0.36  |
| 2015:Q4 | 1                | 0.33        | -0.02           | 0.27  |
| 2016:Q1 | 0.25             | 0.27        | 0.32            | 0.52  |
| 2016:Q2 | 0.52             | 0.61        | 0.28            | 0.22  |
| 2016:Q3 | 0.73             | 0.6         | -0.04           | 0.34  |
| 2016:Q4 | 0.42             | 0.43        | -0.62           | 0.2   |
| 2017:Q1 | 1.43             | 0.39        | -0.01           | 0.62  |
| 2017:Q2 | 0.78             | 0.71        | 0.19            | 0.38  |
| 2017:Q3 | 0.95             | 0.48        | 0.19            | 0.07  |
| 2017:Q4 | 1.56             | 0.48        | -0.07           | 0.57  |
| 2018:Q1 | -0.19            | 0.67        | 0.24            | 0.42  |
| 2018:Q2 | 0.47             | 0.41        | 0.18            | 0.15  |
| 2018:Q3 | 1.34             | 0.37        | 0.29            | -0.01 |
| 2018:Q4 | -4.55            | 0.26        | 0.11            | 0.44  |
| 2019:Q1 | 4.22             | 0.63        | 0.1             | 1.29  |
| 2019:Q2 | 0.96             | 0.51        | 0.63            | 0.27  |
| 2019:Q3 | -0.23            | 0.27        | 0.42            | 0.25  |
| 2019:Q4 | 2.48             | 0.34        | -0.17           | 0.72  |
| 2020:Q1 | -7.71            | 0.7         | -0.35           | 1.5   |
| 2020:Q2 | 5.8              | 0.67        | 0.11            | 1.39  |
| 2020:Q3 | 2.89             | 0.8         | 0.08            | 0.58  |
| 2020:Q4 | 5.73             | 1.09        | 0.21            | 1.37  |
| 2021:Q1 | 2.73             | 1.33        | -0.64           | 1.56  |
| 2021:Q2 | 3.28             | 2.01        | 0.08            | 1.15  |
| 2021:Q3 | 0.04             | 2.08        | -0.08           | 1.49  |
| 2021:Q4 | 2.39             | 1.57        | 0.04            | 1.08  |
| 2022:Q1 | -2.73            | 2.02        | -0.21           | 1.01  |
| 2022:Q2 | -7.9             | 1.98        | -0.3            | 0.38  |
| 2022:Q3 | -2.01            | 0.33        | 0.25            | 0.13  |
| 2022:Q4 | 2.67             | -0.1        | 0.62            | -0.27 |
No. 68631.

protest 61/10452 (New York).

#### Brown Boveri Corp. and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of foundation parts for a gas turbine, the claim at 11% percent under the provision in paragraph 372 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 372), as modified, *supra,*for metal parts of machines was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of foundation parts for an electric generator, were held dutiable at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 353 (19 U.S.O. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for metal parts of articles suitable for producing electrical energy, as claimed.
* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders ; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 9, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GREGORY D. COSBY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-1550 (D. Ct. No. 05-CR-491-WYD)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, HARTZ , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the District Court denying Defendant-Appellant Gregory Cosby’s motion to modify his sentence or, in the alternative, to be placed in half-- 2 -

way house or a Community Corrections Center. Mr. Cobsy appeals pro se, seeking to have this Court order the District Court to hold a hearing on issues related to his placement within the Bureau of Prisons. Neither this Court nor the District Court, however, have power to dictate placements to the Bureau of Prisons. Congress has given the Bureau of Prisons broad authority to determine the place of a prisoner’s confinement. See 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). Moreover, Mr. Cosby has not alleged any constitutional violation or other wrongdoing by the Bureau of Prisons that could be construed as actionable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider this claim on appeal. Furthermore, to the extent Mr. Cosby argues that the District Court erred in failing to modify his sentence, a district court has no jurisdiction to modify a sentence once it has been imposed, except in very narrow circumstances not present here. See United States v. Price , 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 2006); 18 U.S.C. 3582(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the District Court denying Mr. Cosby’s pro se appeal, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Chief Circuit Judge