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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCIA CANDELARIO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

RIP CURL, INC., a California corporation

and DOES, 1

- 10, inclusive,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 56382

D.C. No.

8:16

- cv

- 00963

- CJC

- AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018 **

Pasadena, California

Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, *** District
Judge.

* 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 Gordon J. Quist, United States District Jud ge for the
Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Lucia Candelario appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of Article III

standing of her putative class action lawsuit against Rip Curl, Inc. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In her complaint, Candelario allege s that Rip Curl violated New Jersey’s

Truth

- in

- Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:12

-

14 et seq

. (“T he Act”) because the t erms and c onditions on Rip Curl’s website

deprived Candelario of a cause of action for risk created by Rip Curl and absolved

Rip Curl of its duty to protect consumers from illegal acts of third p arties

.

Candelario argues that, as a result of Rip Curl’s violation of the Act, she suffered

“intangible, informational injuries ” sufficient to trigger Article III standing.

Candelario’s arguments are foreclosed by Bassett v. ABM Parking Services

,

Inc.

, No. 16

- 35933, 2018 WL 987954 , at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018)

. As the

district court noted, Candelario failed to identify any concrete informational injury.

Candelario’s conclusory allegation that she suffered “ intangible, informational

injuries ” based on a violation of the Act alone is too speculative to establish Article

III standing. See id

.

AFFIRMED

.
#### KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Raleigh MILES, Appellee.

.Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 22, 1956.

Harlan Heilman, Carrollton, for appellant.

Wm. G. Reed, Carrollton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment for $684.25 on an automobile indemnity insurance policy. See former appeal, Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Miles,. Ky., 267 S.W.2d 928.

The evidence fully sustains the finding of fact that the insurance company’s representatives were promptly notified in writing of the accident; that they made an investigation thereof and that the company had full notice and knowledge of the suit filed and pending against the insured for personal injuries, its local agent being present during, the trial.

The motion for an appeal is denied, and the judgment stands affirmed.
Exhibit 10.8


 


ADDENDUM #2 TO PERSONAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


Dated April 8, 2014


 


By and between


 


Advanced Inhalation Therapies (AIT) Ltd.


(the "Company")


 


And


 


Racheli Vizman


I.D. 040785610


(the "Employee")


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have entered into a Personal Employment Agreement Dated September 09, 2012, as amended on May 30, 2013 (the "Employment Agreement"); Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS the parties wish to amend the provisions of the Employment Agreement, as hereinafter provided.


 


NOW TEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto hereby declare and agree as follows:


 


1. Effective as of 1 April, 2014 ("Effective Date")


 


		a.	Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following:



 


"The Employee shall be employed by the Company on a full time basis. The Employee's scope of work shall be 100% of a full time position (the "Scope of Work"). Employee Further undertakes to devote, in the Scope of Work, her entire business time, exclusively to the performance of her duties in the Company".


 


		b.	Section 6.1 of the Employment Agreement will be amended such that Salary shall be in the amount of NIS 33,333 instead of the amount of NIS 25,000.



 


2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement not amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[signatures page next]


 


Addendum #2 to Personal Employment Agreement- Racheli Vizman


 












1 





 




 


IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties hereto have executed this Addendum as of the date first above written:


 


	/s/ Ari Raved	 	
/s/ Racheli Vizman


	Advanced Inhalation Therapies (AIT) Ltd.	 	Racheli Vizman



 


	By:	
Ari Raved

	 
	Title:	Director	 



 


Addendum #2 to Personal Employment Agreement- Racheli Vizman


 


 


2
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, John Alderfer, as the Chief Financial Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the sole Manager ofVestin Fund I, LLC, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Vestin Fund I, LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of Vestin Fund I, LLC as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. Vestin Fund I, LLC’s other certifying Officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Securities Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Vestin Fund I, LLC and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to Vestin Fund I, LLC, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-82377 and 34-47986;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of Vestin Fund I, LLC’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluations; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any changes in Vestin Fund I, LLC’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during Vestin Fund I, LLC’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,Vestin Fund I, LLC’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. Vestin Fund I, LLC’s other certifying Officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Vestin Fund I, LLC’s Auditors andthe Audit Committee of Vestin Fund I, LLC’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect Vestin Fund I, LLC’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in Vestin Fund I, LLC’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:November 8, 2005/s/John Alderfer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               WITH REGARD TO HEALTHWATCH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                             TAUBER & BALSER, P.C.
                         Certified Public Accountants
                           3340 Peachtree Road, N.E.
                                   Suite 250
                               Atlanta, GA 30326

We hereby consent to the use of our report, dated September 26, 2000, except as
to Note O, which date is as of March 3, 2001, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of HealthWatch, Inc. as of June 30, 2000 and 1999, included
in the Company's amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A and to the incorporation
by reference of the aforementioned financial statements in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 for the 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan, Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of 1987,Stock Option Plan of 1989 and Stock Option Plan of 1993,
Registration Statement Nos. 33-36833, 33-22729, 33-36832 and 33-75470,
respectively, Registration Statements on Form S-8 for the 1995 Stock Option Plan
and 1995 Stock Grant and Salary Deferral Plan Registration Statement Nos. 033-
65151 and 333-35297 and S-3 Registration Statements for Selling Shareholders
Nos. 33-88032, 333-19393, 333-21929 and 333-26913.



/s/ Tauber & Balser, P.C.
-------------------------
TAUBER & BALSER, P.C.
Atlanta, Georgia
April 26, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 217


Regulations Governing the Take of Marine Mammals Incidental to 
Specified Activities

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 200 to 227, 
revised as of October 1, 2023, remove Subpart I to Part 217.

[FR Doc. 2024-02695 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
Order entered January 19, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 01041 - CV VSDH VAQUERO VENTURE , LTD., EVAN L. SHAW AND DOUGLAS M. HICKO K, Appellant s /Cross - Appelle es V. KEN GROSS AND BETSY GROSS, Appellee s/Cross - Appellants On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 09 - 05232 - A



### O RDER Before the Court is appellees /cross

- appellants ’ January 17, 2017 motion for extensi on of time to file their brief. We GRANT appellees/cross

- appellants’ motion and ORDER the brief received on January 17, 2017 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA-2011-1037 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-30-AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

HAl Harold Summers 11/8/ 12 

EASA Alastair Caldwell 1117/12 Other. List below. 

Other/Additional Information: EASA responded that they wrote two different ADs for the same N2 

Sensor Harness part number replacement because the manufacturing issue for the existing AD is 

crimping and the new EASA AD is for corrosion. 

9
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


                                   EXHIBIT 27.6
<ARTICLE> 5

<CIK>                                 0001012704
<NAME>                        UGLY DUCKLING CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

       
<S>                          <C>              
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       514
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            105,891
<ALLOWANCES>                              14,880
<INVENTORY>                               25,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0<F1>
<PP&E>                                    51,117
<DEPRECIATION>                             5,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           287,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                 173,724
<OTHER-SE>                                 7,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             287,561
<SALES>                                   72,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          87,777
<CGS>                                     41,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          23,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          15,362
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            6,229
<INCOME-TAX>                               2,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        3,729
<DISCONTINUED>                            (5,595)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,866)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.10)
<FN>
<F1>UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET </FN>         

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 22, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), The Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (“AIM Photonics”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership.                

The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, CSPEED, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; and University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, have been added as parties to this venture.

                    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research                           ( print page 8248)                        project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.                

                    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 11, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 15, 2023 (88 FR 86938).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-02256 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### EAST KENTUCKY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Donald PRICE et ux., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 28, 1966.

John W. Murphy, Jr., Liberty, for appellant.

David F. McAnelly, Liberty, for appel-lees.

HILL, Judge.

This is an appeal from a $3,300 judgment in a condemnation case undertaking to obtain an easement 150 feet wide and 4329 feet long containing 14.92 acres out of appellees’ 275-acre farm for the erection and maintenance of an electric power line.

Appellant insists that (1) the verdict is excessive and (2) incompetent evidence for appellees was admitted.

There was no motion and grounds for a new trial' filed on behalf of appellant. Consequently, the question of whether the verdict is excessive has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Cf. Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Williams, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 482 (1958); and CR 59.06.

Appellant next complains of the admission of evidence tending to prove that a part of the easement sought herein is suitable for building purposes. We do not consider this evidence incompetent. Common*706wealth, Dept. of Highways v. Treadway, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 296 (1961).

Finally, appellant assails the admission of testimony on behalf of appellees relative to an option given by a former owner of this farm to the Casey County Board of Education for a prospective school building site, to which appellant objected. The price stipulated in the option was $1,226.99 per acre. The option was never exercised. This evidence was manifestly incompetent and prejudicial to appellant. Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Herndon, Ky., 378 S.W.2d 620 (1964); and Orgrl on Valuation Under Eminent Domain, Vol. 1, Sec. 148, p. 620.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20560

BALRAM R. JERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

FLUOR CORPORATION; FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas, Houston

4:10-CV-1505

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After carefully reviewing the record and considering the briefs of the

parties and argument of counsel, we are satisfied the evidence adequately

supports the jury’s verdict.

We also conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error in its

evidentiary rulings that appellant challenges in this appeal. We, therefore,

affirm the judgment of the trial court entered on the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20560 Document: 00512278626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         138,233
<SECURITIES>                                 5,200,477
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,253,170
<ALLOWANCES>                                   207,390
<INVENTORY>                                  4,162,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,205,677
<PP&E>                                      11,297,909
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,615,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,492,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,906,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,206
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,511,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,492,068
<SALES>                                     15,215,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,215,194
<CGS>                                        6,866,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,866,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,682,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,351
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (14,020)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,371
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOSTAFA ARAM AZADPOUR,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-11-00309-CR

Appeal from

County Criminal Court No. 8

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1210111)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating