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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATASHA BECKETT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BANK OF AMERICA, NA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-55086 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-08328-PA-AS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 6, 2020**

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,***

District Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Natasha Beckett (“Ms. Beckett”) appeals from the 

dismissal, without leave to amend, of her California common-law fraud claim 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Timothy Hillman, United States District Judge for the 

District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

against Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, NA (“Bank of America”). She argues 

that the district court erred in concluding that her claim was time-barred because, 

under either the delayed discovery or estoppel by fraudulent concealment defenses, 

her claim did not accrue until she learned about the fraud, i.e., when she read a law 

firm advertisement posted by her attorneys. We disagree. 

These defenses only delay accrual until a plaintiff “has, or should have, 

inquiry notice of the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 

914, 920 (Cal. 2005); see also Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 

1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Given the volume of missing or allegedly incomplete 

applications (five), the number of home inspections charged to her account (twentyfive), and her receipt of a notice of foreclosure shortly after she was approved for—

and made several timely payments under—a loan modification plan, Ms. Beckett 

was on inquiry notice of fraud by, at the latest, the January 2011 short-sale of her 

home. She thus cannot benefit from either defense.

Ms. Beckett also challenges the district court’s denial of leave to amend her 

Complaint. However, the district court did not err because any amendment would 

have been futile. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 717–18 (9th Cir. 2003).

For these reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Beckett’s claim is

AFFIRMED.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 24, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT: July 18, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 18, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Cory Hunt, Nevada Governor’s Office

Colleen Cripps, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection

Dave Emme, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection

Deborah Jordan, EPA

Amy Zimpfer, EPA

Reid Harvey, EPA

James Critchfield, EPA

Beth Conlin, EPA

Joe Bryson, EPA

Brian Fisher, EPA

Erika Wilson, EPA

Brent Maier, EPA

Niloufar Glosson, EPA

Ray Saracino, EPA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

CLAUDE DESCARDES,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 775 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether the Superior Court’s conclusion that [respondent] was entitled to

coram nobis review conflicts with the holdings of the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Ahlborn and Commonwealth v. Hall

as well as prior Superior Court precedent?
# C_2016203EN.01003001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/30

---

Article 74

The Commission may exempt from the provisions of this Chapter the transfer, import or export of small quantities of ores, source materials or special fissile materials such as are normally used in research.

The Agency shall be notified of every transfer, import or export operation effected by virtue of this provision.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM  THE  UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  AMERICAN  MEDICAL
SECURITY GROUP, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           305,298
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            3,795
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 309,093
<CASH>                                          (1,951)
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 499,560
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             19,300
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 119,364
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 53,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,653
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   499,560
<PREMIUMS>                                     527,090
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              9,675
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  11,684
<BENEFITS>                                     409,165
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           135,790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (535)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0




</TABLE>
#### Ralph Bryan ELLISON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7321.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 26, 1963.

R. Sterling Ambler, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Jack R. Parr, Asst. U. S. Atty. (B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT, LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN, HILL, and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is here for the third time seeking relief from a sentence imposed for narcotic violations. See Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 263 F.2d 395, and Ellison v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 489, certiorari denied 365 U.S. 885, 81 S.Ct. 1038, 6 L.Ed.2d 196. The present proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is based on the previously unasserted claim that the appellant was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea of guilty. The trial court denied relief without a hearing.

Whatever doubt may have existed after Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835, and Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, over the right of a petitioner to claim in a § 2255 proceeding that a guilty plea was not made voluntarily and knowingly, was removed by Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148. When such a claim is presented it may not be denied without a hearing. In exercising its discretionary powers to direct the form and extent of the hearing the trial court is governed by the admonitions appearing in Machibroda, 368 U.S. at pp. 495-496, 82 S.Ct. 514, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, and in Sanders, 373 U.S. at pp. 20-23, 83 S.Ct. 1079-1081, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views here expressed.
03^s'-6oi^'^ File at County Clerk's Office.

Instructions for Tenant:

Schedule thetrial bycalling the County Courts atLaw Offices (512) 854-9241 or(512) 854-9249.

File the completed, signed form in the CountyClerk's Office.

Senda copytothePlaintiff/Landlord bycertified mail return receipt requested, fax, orpersonal delivery.

t ame ofPlaint ndld

'miMmm^iCause No: m w__

In County Court at Law, #_J_

Travis County, Texas

?A-C\l-I5-Mlll

m

Name ofDefendant/ffena,

To:

Tenant's Notice of Trial Setting

23$

fc Print name of PTaintifVL&ndlor

The trial of this case is set on this date:

month / day / year

and at this time:

Ire

r-

"f!

o

•t3

»•. o

o? O

OK *

.m

a

The trial will take place in CountyCourtat Law #1 or#2, both located on the second floor ofthe

Heman Marion Sweatt Civil Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701.

RECEIVED

four Signature

Your Printed Name

Your full Address:

Phone Number (£$.) W2D

Fax Number. ( ) - (if available)

Certificate of Service

Icertify thata complete copy ofthis document wasdelivered to Plaintiff/Landlord's agentof

record on this date by: (Check one.)

• Certified mail, return receipt requested

(Bring receiptstamped with dateofmailing and green return receipt card tocourt.)

• Fax, to fax #C J-

(Bring fax confirmation to court.)

• Hand delivery

(Bring signed acknowledgment ofdelivery from Plaintiff/Landlord to court.)

•

Your Signature

Tenant's Notice of Trial Setting, September 2011

Date

Page 1 of 1
OS'lC-onnf-w File at County Clerk's Office.

use No: to-DMC-MO/H

In County Court atLaw, # /

Travis County, Texas

Motion for Appointed Attorney

am the Defendant/Tenant in this case.

cannot afford to hire an attorney.

Ifiled this appeal by filing an Affidavit ofInability to PayCost ofAppeal or File AppeatjBpnd.^. v0

& rc\

3 « a °

&%

*

<p

en

respectfully ask the Court to appoint an attorney to represent me in this appeal of my eviction.

KECEMED

^ 1 6 2m

Your Signature:

Your Printed Name: l{\ SuliPjflff))

Address: %$,

City:QJUMU/Il State:TX Zip Code: ^HO

Phone Number

Certificate of Service

I certify that a complete copy of this document was delivered to the Plaintiff/Landlord's agent of

record on this date by:

(Check one.)

• Certified mail, return receipt requested

• Fax, to fax # ( ) -

• Hand delivery

•

Your Signature Date

Tenant's Motion for Appointed Attorney, September 2011 Page 1 of 1
D. S., MOTHER OF A. M. AND 

A. S., MINOR CHILDREN,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3985

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

David M. Gooding, Judge.

Crystal Mcbee Frusciante, Sunrise; Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional 

Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville; David Paul 

Krupski, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**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**

|  | 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:                September 13, 2007 |                                                                          |                                |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                         |                                                                               | /s/                Arthur E. Reiner |
|                                    | Arthur                E. Reiner                                               |
|                                    | Chairman,                President and Chief                Executive Officer |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DELORES ELLEN BRYANT,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 751 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Plouris Rivera, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered June 5, 1987, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the first degree, attempted assault in the second degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 20 years to life, 1 to 3 years and two terms of *IV2*to *AV2*years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, charged with attempted murder and other crimes, admitted at trial that he had robbed a drug dealer and that he subsequently fired three shots in the air when Lopez, a bystander, attempted to subdue him. Defendant further admitted firing a single shot at Torres, not knowing that Torres was an undercover police officer. The People’s theory of the case, credited by the jury, was that defendant deliberately and repeatedly shot at Lopez and Torres, who had thrice identified himself as a police officer.

Defendant’s claim of error with respect to the court’s reasonable doubt charge is similarly unpreserved. We have previously considered instructions to the effect that a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which some good reason can be articulated, and found that the charge does not improperly shift the *531burden of proof. *(People v Jackson,*155 AD2d 329, *affd*76 NY2d 908.)

Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct in connection with the prosecutor’s summation is preserved only to the extent that an objection was lodged challenging the prosecutor’s attempt to establish that defendant had purchased a gun to commit other crimes and had been engaged in other criminal activity. There was no misconduct, however, since these remarks constituted fair comment upon the evidence adduced at trial, arising out of defendant’s own testimony. *(People v Morgan,*66 NY2d 255.) [The unpublished order of this Court entered on June 18, 1991 is hereby recalled and vacated and the foregoing substituted therefor.] Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.3

                                                     ANDERSEN

                                                     Arthur Andersen
                                                     10 Hoe Chiang Road, #18-00
                                                     Keppel Towers
                                                     Singapore 089315

                                                     Tel 2204377
                                                     Fax 2234795

                                                     www.andersen.com

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report filed with this Form 6-K into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements File No. 333-59098 and 333-62132.


/s/ Arthur Andersen
Arthur Andersen
Independent Accountants

11 April 2002
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-30545,33-37818, 333-118030 and 333-118031 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-87254,333-106709 and 333-02519 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 10, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of A.M. Castle & Co. andsubsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans*effectiveDecember 31, 2006), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of A.M. Castle & Co. for the year endedDecember 31, 2007.        /s/     Deloitte & Touche LLP   *DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*   Chicago, Illinois
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.5

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                           CHITTENDEN CAPITAL TRUST II

         THIS Certificate of Trust of Chittenden Capital Trust II (the "Trust")
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a
business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. (S)3801, et
                                                         -------          --
seq.) (the "Act").
---

         1. Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is "Chittenden
            ----
Capital Trust II".

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
            ----------------
the Trust in the State of Delaware are The Bank of New York (Delaware), White
Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.

         3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon
            --------------
filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)
of the Act.

                                            THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE), not
                                            in its individual capacity but
                                            solely as trustee of the Trust

                                            By: /s/ William T. Lewis
                                                --------------------
                                            Name: William T. Lewis
                                            Title: Senior Vice President

                                            THE BANK OF NEW YORK, not in its
                                            individual capacity but solely as
                                            trustee of the Trust

                                            By: /s/ Kisha A. Holder
                                                -------------------
                                            Name: Kisha A. Holder
                                            Title: Assistant Treasurer

                                            /s/ F. Sheldon Prentice
                                            -----------------------
                                            F. SHELDON PRENTICE, not in his
                                            individual capacity but solely as
                                            trustee of the Trust
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel A. Q. Hernandez, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on May 12, 1988, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oba Majette, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered June 26, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention, *inter alia,*that the demonstration conducted by the prosecutor during jury selection, wherein she asked the prospective jurors to close their eyes and describe her, in order to determine whether they understood the difference between the ability to recognize a person and the ability to describe that person, has not been preserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

Additionally, we find that the defendant’s sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive, especially in view of the serious nature of the crime *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Alvarado,*140 AD2d 446, *lv denied*72 NY2d 915) or harmless *(see, People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 837). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### Michael W. Gruber, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Linda Gruber, et al., Appellants, v Fair-port Central School District, Respondent.

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Crew III, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Crew III, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ. *[See,*147 Misc 2d 545.]