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). Accordingly, Scott’s request

for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACK SCOTT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

TRUST COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-16969

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02056-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jack Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his

action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

MAY 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-16969

§ 1291. We review de novo, Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922

(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated

in its order entered on August 13, 2010. Moreover, the district court did not err by

implicitly denying Scott’s request for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f) because Scott failed to show how additional discovery would have

precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.

1998) (district court may implicitly deny Rule 56(f) motion).

Scott’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to reinstate the

preliminary injunction is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954

F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the

reversal of a denial of a preliminary injunction would have no practical

consequences, and the issue is therefore moot). 

Appellees’ motion to amend the jurisdictional statement in their notice of

removal is granted. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2002)

(under 28 U.S.C. § 1653, the court of appeals has the authority to grant leave to

amend in order to cure defective allegations of jurisdiction). Contrary to Scott’s

contentions, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of

diversity. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th
3 10-16969

Cir. 2006) (discussing requirements for diversity jurisdiction and citizenship of

limited liability companies).

Scott’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
No. 96-5778.

#### Barrett *v.*North Carolina.

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime People and Culture Director retirement announced

By Sharon CorumDLA Land and Maritime, People and Culture Directorate

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
A Retirement Ceremony in honor of Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime People and Culture Director, Robert L. Boggs Ph.D, is being held in the Building 20 Auditorium Dec. 11 at 10 a.m.  

The event will be hosted by DLA Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. John Palmer.

Please join us for a cake and punch reception immediately following the ceremony in B130N.

Attendees should have supervisor approval and use Eagle Code RG.  

If you would like to contribute towards a gift for Boggs, please contact Sharon Corum, (614) 692-2042, Sharon.corum@dla.mil.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Careers L&MCommunity L&MCulture L&MResiliency L&MretirementDLA L&M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0577

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

RUSSELL KORTAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 24, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 14 2022

01/14/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0577
# C_2013079EN.01002101.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/21

---

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Yaqub/OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)

(Case T-580/12)

2013/C 79/37

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jenkins, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Republic of Turkey

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the second board of appeal of the 17 September 2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the second board of appeal of the 17 September 2012.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘ATATURK’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 25, 29, 30 and 32 (Community trade mark 4 633 434)

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Republic of Turkey

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of the Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2013032EN.01000502.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl v Regione Puglia

(Case C-523/12)

2013/C 32/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Regione Puglia

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a provision of law — such as Article 2(3) of Puglia Regional Law No 12/2009, in force at regional level — which regulates in a restrictive manner access to the market for the provision of certain specific services designed to enhance the level of education locally (post-graduate Masters degree courses), making such access conditional upon meeting a single requirement which, in relation to the purpose of the Community measure (enhancement of the quality of education and, accordingly, selection of individuals with suitable qualifications) is arbitrarily chosen and expressed (a number of hours spread over an unnecessarily long period) and not differentiated according to the actual duration of the specific service, compatible with Article 56 et seq. and Article 101 et seq. (formerly Article 49 et seq. and Article 81 et seq. of the EC Treaty) and Article 107 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in the version in force from 1 December 2009) and with the principles of competition, proportionality, non-discrimination and equal treatment which may be inferred from those rules, and with Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of the Additional Protocol thereto and Articles 11 and 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0147

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ALEXANDER GARRETT LAFORGE III,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 21, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 8 2024

07/08/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0147
#### James M’Kell, *vs.*Neil and Wife.

*Error to Eesrmines.*

The Supreme Court will not infer that a judgment by default in the court below was on a different day than that which appears in the record.

After argument it is too late to raise the objection that the errors have not bean as-ligr.cd by rule day.

Grimes, for plaintiff in error.

Rouen, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The defendants in error brought suit against M’Kell, returnable to the October term, 1841. That term appears to have commenced on the twenty-first day of October, and a judgment by default was rendered against the defendant below, on the twentieth day of the same month. This was clearly erroneous, for no default could legally have been rendered against the defendant until the second day of the term. There is probably some clerical error in *272this case, but we have no means of correcting that mistake and must, decide upon the case as it appears in the transcript.

The defendant in error insists that there was no assignment of errors filed by- the third day of the term, and that it is too late now to raise any points in the case. That circumstance, if available at all, should have been made the basis of a motion previous to the argument.

The judgment below will *therefore*be *set*aside and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings thereon.

Note.—At the next term of the court it was made to appear that the error which caused the above reversal, was clerical only. Thereupon the case was reinstated and the judgment affirmed.
No. 48892.

#### Protests 908872-G, etc., of T. H. Lung Co. et al. (Boston).

*291Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247) the merchandise was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5. The protests were sustained to this extent.