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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXA NITA RUSSELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a 

Texas limited partnership; JOHN AND 

MARY DOES, 1-100, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-15169 

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00277-HG-KSC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018

**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Alexa Nita Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a pending 

foreclosure of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-15169 

review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 

656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action because Russell failed 

to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (explaining that “a pleading that offers labels 

and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is

insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation, internal quotation marks, and 

alterations omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Russell leave to 

include previously abandoned claims in the third amended complaint because 

amendment would have been futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 

1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 

particularly broad when it afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).

The district court properly denied Russell’s motion to remand the action to 

state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441. See D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974 

n.2 (9th Cir 2004) (denial of a motion to remand a removed case is reviewed de 

novo).
3 13-15169 

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters 

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett

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

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS The Board of Directors
Epoch Biosciences, Inc.: We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-88909) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-112141, 33-73074 and 333-68068) on Form
S-8 of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. of our report dated February 23, 2004, with
respect to the balance sheets of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. as of December 31,
2002 and 2003, and the related statements of operations, stockholders equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form
10-K of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. Our report refers to the adoption of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets, effective January 2002. /s/ KPMG LLP Seattle, Washington
March 26, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7458

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD CALLOWAY, a/k/a Stink,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-92-113, CA-96-393-N)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Calloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June

23, 1997) (No. 96-6298); United States v. Calloway, Nos. CR-92-113;

CA-96-393-N (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. John S. FLANNERY, and American Security and Trust Company, Executors under Last Will and Testament of William B. Hibbs, deceased, Appellees. SAME v. Ada Bain SPAID and William Spaid; Executors under the Last Will and Testament of W. W. Spaid, deceased, Appellees.

Nos. 4487, 4488.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,

Aug. 28, 1939.

Thomas G. Carney, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.

George *E. Elliot of*Washington, D. C. (C. L. Aillo, of Washington, D. C., Mc-Kenney, Flannery & Craighill and Mohun & Elliot,all of Wahington D. C., on the brief), for appelles.

Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and H. H. WATKINS, District Judge.

*316PER CURIAM.

Careful consideration of the questions involved in these cases convinces us that the decisions below were correct for reasons adequately stated in the opinions of the District Judge. Flannery v. United States, 25 F.Supp. 677; Spaid v. United States, 28 F.Supp. 670. As nothing could be added by further discussion of the questions, in the decision of which the lower court followed decisions of the Second Circuit (Helvering v. Archbald, 70 F.2d 720, Helvering v. Walbridge, 70 F.2d 683), the opinions of the District Judge are adopted as the opinions of this Court.

Affirmed.
exv10w31



 





Exhibit 10.31



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Golfsmith International, Inc.-


	 	PH 512 837-8810 Administration
	 	FAX 512 837-1019 Administration
	

	 	Golfsmith International, L.P.


	 	PH 512 837-8810 Purchasing
	 	FAX 512 837-9347 Purchasing
	

	 	 	 	PH 512 837-4810 Sales
	 	FAX 512 837-1245 Sales
	

	 	
11000 North IH-35

Austin, Texas 78753-3195

www.golfsmith.com	 	 	 	 





March 29, 2005




Mr. Carl Paul

11000 North IH-35

Austin, Texas 78753




		
	Re: 	First Amendment to Carl F. Paul Employment Agreement with Golfsmith International, Inc.





Dear Mr. Paul:




     We refer to that certain Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of October 15, 2002,
between you and Golfsmith International, Inc. (the “Company”) whereby you have been retained by the
Company to act as a senior adviser to the Company’s Golf Club Components Division on an “as needed”
basis.



     The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:




     “Executive’s annual salary shall be $26,000, which may be reviewed and increased at the
discretion of the Board of Directors of the Company or any committee authorized by the Board
of Directors of the Company duly authorized to take such action.”



     This amendment to the Agreement shall be deemed effective as of November 2, 2003. This letter
agreement shall be governed by Texas law without reference to the choice of law principles thereof.



     If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please execute this letter agreement in the space
below, at which time this instrument will constitute a binding agreement among us.



     Very truly yours,



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	     /s/ Virginia Bunte	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Virginia Bunte	 	 
	 	 	Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer	 	 






AGREED AND ACCEPTED:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	/s/ Carl F. Paul
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Name: Carl F. Paul
14910-I3-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON .~ro

OlJTl»U SYMBOL

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

OtmNG SYMOO~

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl)

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products liste

ACTION: Final rule.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

Ainvortbiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes

R1N 2120-AA64

PATE

~l-vlk'"

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1223j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-114-AD; Amendmen S\'MllOL

1"'32-7 /2 -0 Ip /1//'1 - i/4

39_*****; AD 2010-**-**")

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe TIN.SiSle

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

Dtrring final Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP), a small oil leak was

discovered on the Spoiler Unload Valve and Rudder Shutoff Valve bodies.

Investigation revealed that a number of valves were manufactured with an

incorrect wall thickness. This thin wall condition caused cracking,

subsequent external weeping and pressure loss from the subject valves.

rNlTIAUiSle

A'[E

ourlNe SYMOOl

This condition, if not corrected, will cause a loss of hydraulic fluid and

subsequent loss of spoiler and/or rudder control.

'ITIALS1Sle

• • • • • • •

lITlNC SYMBOL

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these

products.
(4910-I3-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

(Docket No. FAA·2009-1223; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-114~AD; Amendment

39-*****; AD 2010-**-**]

RlN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transporlation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products liste

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl)

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as;

During final Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP), a small oil leak was

discovered on the Spoiler Unload Valve and Rudder Shutoff Valve bodies.

Investigation revealed that a number of valves were manufactured with an

incorrect wall thickness. This thin wall condition caused cracking,

subsequent external weeping and pressure Joss from the subject valves.

This condition, ifnot corrected, will cause a loss of hydraulic fluid and

subsequent loss of spoiler and/or rudder control.

'Q"'CLJ I< '"eS

OUT,NGSYM"QL

ANE-171

MrlAL.5IS'G

C. orne:.

XlUT'NG Sf UO,.

LGB/AEG

, , , , , , ,

UTtN(; SY'"'''OL

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these

products.
Opinion of Henderson & Lyman



 Exhibit No. 1.04b 
  

April 14, 2005 
  
 The Price Fund I, L.P. 
 141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1340A 
 Chicago, Illinois 60604 
  
 Re: The Price Fund
I, L.P. Units of Limited Partnership Interest 
  
 Ladies and Gentlemen:

  
 We have acted as your counsel in connection with the preparation and filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), of post-effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 on or about the date hereof, as
the same may be amended from time to time (the “Registration Statement”), relating to Units of Limited Partnership Interest (“Units”) of The Price Fund I, L.P. (the “Partnership”), a limited Partnership organized under
the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. We have reviewed such data, documents, questions of law and fact and other matters as we have deemed pertinent for the purpose of rendering this opinion. Based upon the foregoing, we hereby
confirm our opinion expressed under the caption “Federal Income Tax Aspects” in the Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) constituting a part of the Registration Statement that the Partnership will be taxed as a partnership for federal
income tax purposes. We also advise you that in our opinion, the description set forth under the caption “ Federal Income Tax Aspects” in the Prospectus correctly describes (subject to the uncertainties referred to therein) the material
considerations of the federal income tax treatment to a United States individual taxpayer, as of the date hereof, of an investment in the Partnership. We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an Exhibit to the Registration Statement and
all references to our firm included in or made a part of the Registration Statement. In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act or the rules and
regulations of the Commission thereunder. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  
 /s/    HENDERSON & LYMAN 
 Chicago, Illinois
----

Exhibit 31.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO       SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Avery Pack, President and Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Pictures Corp. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Pictures Corp.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

>         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;        b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and        c) presented in this report conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;      

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

>         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and      

6. I have indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 20, 2003
| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack             Principal Executive Officer and             Principal Financial Officer |
#### Rosalia Sobel, Appellant, *v.*Nicolai Judovits, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 18, 1959.

*961
      *Frans Goldner*and *Joseph Lewis Simon*for appellant.

*Harold H. Rothman*and *Harris Koppelman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

On the overruling of the traverse and the consequent denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment, on the ground of nonservice of the summons, which motion was made more than one year after service of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry, the court was without power to open the default. (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 129, subd. 2.) Section 88 of the Municipal Court Code does not apply to this situation.

The order overruling traverse should be modified by striking therefrom the provision permitting defendant to interpose an answer, and as modified affirmed, with $10 costs to appellant.

Appeal from order of November 12, 1958 should be dismissed, without costs.

Concur — Steuer, J. P., Hofstadter and Aurelio, JJ.

Order modified, etc.
EXHIBIT 10(t)

                        INDEMNITY AGREEMENT


          THIS  INDEMNITY  AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") entered into between
THE BEARD COMPANY (the "Company")  and  the  WILLIAM  M. BEARD AND LU BEARD
1988 CHARITABLE UNITRUST (the "Trust"), dated as of the  17th day of April,
1997.

                         W I T N E S S T H

          WHEREAS, on February 24, 1997, the Company executed  a promissory
note (the "Note") by which it promised to pay $164,201.80 in principal plus
interest  to  the  order of Liberty Bank & Trust Company of Oklahoma  City,
N.A. (the "Lender").

          WHEREAS, on  February  24,  1997,  the  Trust executed a guaranty
agreement (the "Guaranty") by which the Trust guaranteed  and  promised  to
pay the Lender the indebtedness of the Company represented by the Note.

          NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the  premises  and mutual
covenants herein contained, the Trust and the Company agree as follows:

          1.   INDEMNIFICATION.   The  Company  hereby  agrees that in  the
event  the  Trust  is  required  to  pay the Note or any part thereof,  the
Company  in  consideration of the Trust  having  made  the  Guaranty,  will
indemnify and  hold  harmless the Trust for the full amount of such payment
made by the Trust, together  with any legal fees, expenses, and other costs
incidental to the enforcement  of  liability  of  the  Guaranty against the
Trust.

          2.   LIMITATION   ON   INDEMNIFICATION.    The  above   described
indemnification  shall  not  extend  to  or  indemnify and hold  the  Trust
harmless  with  respect  to  the  failure  of  the  Trust  to  perform  its
obligations pursuant to the Guaranty.

          3.   GOVERNING  LAW.   This  Agreement  shall  be   governed  and
construed  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  laws of the State  of
Oklahoma.

          4.   BINDING EFFECT.  This Agreement shall be  binding  upon  the
parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns.

          5.   COUNTERPARTS.  This agreement may be executed in a number of
identical  counterparts,  each of which shall be deemed an original for all
purposes, but all of which taken together shall form but one agreement.

          IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  executed  this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


"COMPANY"                        THE BEARD COMPANY


                                 By  HERB MEE, JR.
                                     Herb Mee, Jr., President


"TRUST"                          WILLIAM   M.   BEARD  AND  LU  BEARD  1988
                                 CHARITABLE UNITRUST


                                 By  WILLIAM M. BEARD
                                     William M. Beard, Trustee

                                 By  LU BEARD
                                     Lu Beard, Trustee
#### Nellie B. KELLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 11328.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1939.

Forest P. Tralles and Fred J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo., Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Andrew D. Sharpe and Leon F. Cooper, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, Brown v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 214, dismissed at cost of appellant, per stipulation of party.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-29014]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 29, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 165 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-153, CP2024-159.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-29014 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Application of Doyle Eugene SELBY and Dillas Ray Coats for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12339.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 1, 1956.

Doyle Eugene Selby and. Dillas Ray Coats, petitioners, pro se.

; hjac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Presiding Judge.-

- This is an originál action in habeas corpus wherein the petitioners, Doyle Eugene Selby and Dillas Ray Coats, seek to secure their release from confinement in the penitentiary.

The petition alleges in substance that the petitioners entered- a plea of guilty in the District Court .of Oklahoma County on September 18, 1954, to two charges of robbery with firearms and were sentenced to serve 25 years respectively in each case, the sentences to run concurrently. That the petitioners each entered their plea of guilty by 'reason of a promise that a lesser penalty than that which they received would be assessed them and that therefore they were under mental duress.

We have not been furnished with a copy of the information, nor a copy of the' judgment and sentence, nor a copy of the'minutes of the proceedings at the time of the -arraignment of the accused. There is nothing before us to show that 'the court did'riot have jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment which was entered. The petition does not state who made the alleged promise to them, nor whether they-had-the serv*771ices of an attorney to advise with them before entering their plea of guilty.

The demurrer of the Attorney General to the petition is sustained and the writ is denied.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.