alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Luis Alonso Bernal GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71326

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 20, 2016

John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

. MEMORANDUM **

Luis Alonso Bernal Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We *968review de novo questions of law, *Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder,*600 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010), and- deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Bernal Gomez’ conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11383(c)(1) was a drug trafficking aggravated felony that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See Lopez-Jacuinde,*600 F.3d at 1217-19 (a conviction under CHSC § 11383(c)(1) is categorically a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (a conviction for an aggravated felony renders an applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal).

Bernal Gomez contends that this court’s decision in *Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder*was wrongly decided, but in the absence of an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision, “[a] three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent.” *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Marshall S. SANDERS, As Trustee of the Marshall and Lydia Sanders Trust Dated April 20, 1990; Lydia O. Sanders, As Trustee of the Marshall and Lydia Sanders Trust Dated April 20, 1990, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55430

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Marshall S, Sanders, Pro Se

Lydia O. Sanders, Pro Se

*520Adam F. Summerfield, Esquire, Attorney, Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A.

Conrad V. Sisón, Locke Lord LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., National Default Servicing Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Marshall S. Sanders and Lydia 0. Sanders appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action related to a deed of trust. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In the Sanders’ opening brief, the Sanders failed to address any of the grounds for dismissal and have therefore waived their challenge to the district court’s order. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived). Even if we were not to consider waiver, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Sanders’ action because the second amended complaint failed to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [the Sanders are] entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); *see McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth standard of review and recognizing that “[p]ro-lix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”); *see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of a claim that gives the defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### ATOFAU, Plaintiff v. NUUTOFIA and Others, Defendants

No. 5-1915

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Siasiaga”]

July 15, 1918

A. STRONACH, *President of High Court*

FINAL JUDGMENT

It being so agreed by all parties to this action, in open Court, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the family of SALEMEANAI, are entitled to the ownership and *295possession of the land’ claimed' by them and known as “SIASIAGA”.

As to the other lands in dispute it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the holder of the name ATOFAU is entitled to their ownership and possession.

Since however the several persons now in possession have cleared up such lands and made plantations therein, it is ordered by the Court that the Plaintiff, ATOFAU, pay to the said persons the sum of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, said sum to be paid into the High Court of American Samoa for the benefit of said persons who shall divide the same.

It is further ordered that until such sum is paid in full the persons now in possession of the said land shall continue ,to hold the same and use the plantations but shall make no new plantations and plant no more coconuts.

If the sum hereinbefore named is not paid within two years from the date of this judgment all the plaintiff’s right, title and interest to said land shall be lost by him and shall become vested in the persons now in possession.

The costs of this action are assessed at twenty dollars, ten dollars to be paid by the plaintiff and ten dollars by the defendants.

This the 15th day of July, 1918.
#### UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff v. MAUGA TAUFAASAU, MAILO and FANENE, Defendants

No. 1-1903

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Le Talie” and “Satala” on the north side of Pago Pago Harbor]

February 17, 1903

E. M. GURR, *Presiding Member*

DECREE

THIS CAUSE having been regularly called and tried by the Court, and the parties hereto having entered into a *98Compromise Agreement now on file in this Court, which, by consent of the parties, was made a rule of this Court, whereupon judgment was awarded in favor of the Plaintiff Government against all of the Defendants, as agreed upon in said Compromise Agreement.

It is now, therefore, hereby ordered and adjudged and decreed that the Plaintiff have judgment as agreed upon against the Defendants and each and all of them; that all adverse claims of the Defendants and each of them and all persons claiming or to claim the land and premises hereinafter described, or any part thereof, through or under said Defendants or any of them, are hereby adjudged and decreed to be invalid and groundless, and the Plaintiff Government be and the same is hereby declared and adjudged to be the true and lawful owner of the said land and every part and parcel thereof, and that the title of said Plaintiff is adjudged to be quieted against all claims, demands, or pretensions of the Defendants or any of .them, who are hereby perpetually estopped from setting up any claims thereto or any part thereof. Said premises are bounded and described as follows:—

> “All that piece or parcel of land situate on the north side of Pago Pago Harbor, called or known as ‘LeTalie’ and ‘Satala’, starting at a monument marked [sic] north of a Fau stump on the beach at high-water mark, running along the eastern boundary of the land belonging to Fanene, bearing 9 degrees 33 minutes, distance 187 feet, to a monument marked ; [sic] thence bearing 82 degrees 33 minutes, distance 139.44 feet, to land of Mailo, and dry water-course, in which is a stone marked plainly *‘X’;*thence running along the land of Mailo bearing 82 degrees 33 minutes, distance 84.94 feet, to a monument marked ; [sic] thence bearing 96 degrees 31 minutes, distance 141.15 feet, to a monument marked ; [sic] thence bearing 92 degrees 54 minutes, distance 210.87 feet, to a monument marked ; [sic] thence bearing 83 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds, distance 61.25 feet, to a monument and land of Mauga; thence running along the southern boundary of Mauga’s land, bearing 257 degrees 22 minutes, distance 413.29 *99feet, to a large stone and monument marked ; [sic] thence bearing 188 degrees 44 minutes, distance 192 feet and 10/100 of a foot to a monument marked [sic] on the beach at high-water mark; thence bearing in a westerly direction along the beach, distance 1048.89 feet, to the starting point, as all the said boundaries are described and delineated in the plat attached hereto, marked ‘B’.”

Costs of Court and Registration fees, amounting to $25.00, and the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) to be paid to Defendant Mauga are to be paid by the Plaintiff Government as agreed upon in said Compromise Agreement.
#### George F. Comstock, App’lt, v. The City of Syracuse *et al.,*Resp’ts.

Similar order to that in *Comstock*v. *City of Syracuse, ante,*607.
#### Mackall *vs.*Roberts.

April 5.

Lxror (o tho Bogan Circuit; Henry P. Brobnax, Judge.

*Pleading. Nonjoinder, abatement. Demurrer.*

Petition *k*Summons.

Case 45.

eti Uon and sum-mows on a nóte purportblen exccutocl by defondant and another.

Non joinder of a uefen*dant*in an aoíractttVmáttar of plea in abatement, not demurrer.

Nou 'oinder of a plaintiff mav bo taken advantage of

Chief Justice Boyle

delivered the Opinion of tho Court.

Gn a demurrer to a» action by petition and sumsHctns, brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of a note purporting to be executed by the defendant and auother, the Circuit Court gave judgment for tho do-fondant; to which the plaintiff prosecutes this writ 'of error.

The ground upon which the Circuit Court suatained (lie demurrer is not explicitly stated in the record; arid as the note is for tiie direct payment of money, upon which the action by petition properly ]jeSj and the proceedings are in all respects strictly regular, except the action is brought against only one of the two persons who appear to have signed the note, we infer that to he the only ground upon t¡1R circuit court sustained the demurrer. Assutning this to be the only ground upon which that court decided, it is apparent that the court must have laboured under a mistake by not adverting to tho istinction between cases where all the persons who ought to join m an action upon a contract have not joined in bringing the action, and those cases in which all the persons who ought to be sued in such an action have not been joined as defendants. In cases of the former kind, if the defect is apparent on the face of the declaration, advantage may bo taken of it by demurrer, motion in arrest of judgment, or writ of error; but in cases where ail the persons are not joined as defendants, who ought to *131have been joined the law is well settled that no advantage can bo taken of the nonjoinder, but by plea in abatement.

*Sxvigert*for plaintiff.

The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, erroneous, and must be reversed with cost, and the cause be remanded that further proceedings be there had not inconsistent with this opinion.
Order entered May 16 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00784

- CR

RUBEN LABRADA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicia l District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 18

- 75816

- V

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant ’s May 10, 2022 third motion for an extension

of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant ’ s brief due

by June 10 , 2022.

/s / BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 23.1







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-114496,  333-121039  and  333-128547  on Form S-3, and Nos.  333-116014  and
333-122716  on Form S-8 of our  report,  dated  March 25,  2004,  (which  report
expresses an unqualified  opinion and includes an explanatory  paragraph for the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, "Accounting for
Asset Retirement  Obligations")  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Gasco Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 1, 2006
#### SUFI NETWORK SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-1761

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 10, 2017

Brian Tully McLaughlin, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Frederick W, Claybrook, Jr., Claybrook LLC, Washington, DC.

Douglas T, Hoffman, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirshman, Jr;, Steven J. Gillingham.

(Reyna, Wallach, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### George S. Terry, Receiver, etc., Respondent, *v.*William Wait, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued May 16, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

Actior to recover amount of a promissory note given by defendant, William Wait, to David W. Wait, of whose property plaintiff was appointed receiver in proceedings supplementary to execution. The complaint alleged that the note *658was transferred to Martin, the other defendant, with intent to defraud the judgment creditor. Defendant Wait answered, denying complaint and pleading payment. The note was paid to Martin after notice of plaintiff’s claim. Martin suffered default. *Held,*that to recover against defendant Wait it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove the allegations of fraud; that he was not affected by the default of Martin; and there being no evidence of fraud in the case, judgment reversed.

*W. A. Beach*for the appellant.

*E. F. Bulla/rd*for the respondent.

Eabl, C., reads for reversal. All concur, except Gbay, C., dissenting.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
Goldenway, Inc.: Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.3

ADVERTISING SERVICE AGREEMENT 

THIS ADVERTISING SERVICE AGREEMENT is made on the 1st day of
October, 2009 BETWEEN: 

	1. 	
      Goldenway Investments (HK) Limited (the “Management
      Company”) of Suite 1222, 12/F., Ocean Centre, Harbour City,
      Tsimshatsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and

	 	 
	2. 	
      Goldenway Precious Metals Limited (the “Client
      Company”) of Room 1209, Tower One, China Hong Kong City, Canton Road,
      Tsimshatsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong;



WHEREAS 

The Management Company shall provide the Client Company with
marketing strategies and advertising services. 

The Management Company shall charge a monthly fee of HK$450,000
(the “Service Fee”) to the Client Company. 

The Service Fee shall be payable on the last day of the service
period or on demand after provision of services by the Management Company. 

Either the Management Company or the Client Company has an
option to terminate this management agreement by serving one month prior notice
in writing to the other party. 

	For and on behalf of 	For and on behalf of 
	Goldenway Investments (HK) Limited 	Goldenway Precious Metals Limited 
	 	 
	/s/ Peter Chan Kan Sun                              
    	/s/ Hao Tang                                       
                     
	Peter Chan Kan Sun	Hao Tang
	Director 	Chief Executive Officer


- 1 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         685,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,043,805
<PP&E>                                       2,596,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                 443,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,890,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,869,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        301
<COMMON>                                         9,582
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,027,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,890,381
<SALES>                                        177,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,895
<CGS>                                        1,698,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,114,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,955,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,955,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,955,458)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.308)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.308)


</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 Agriculture

      ( print page 11038)    
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a six-month emergency approval of the following information collection: ICR 0596-NEW, Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Nomination. The requested approval would enable the implementation of this Commission to collect the necessary information needed to brief to Congress on future wild fire mitigation and management plans and techniques.

## Forest Service

*Title:*                     Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Nomination.                

*OMB Control Number:*                     0596-NEW.                

*Summary of Collection:*                     The Forest Service (FS) is requesting emergency clearance and review through 5 CFR 1320.13 for a new information collection for the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Nomination. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Department of Interior (DOI) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) collaboratively established the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission in December 2021 as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.                

Levi S. Harrell,

Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-04099 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8, No.333-83975) pertaining to the 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Stock Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-58174) pertaining to 1998 Stock Plan and (Form S-8, No.333-85468) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc. of our report dated January 20, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of drugstore.com, inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28, 2003. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Seattle, Washington 

March 9, 2004
#### Brighton Operating Corp., Appellant, *v.*P. Walker Morrison et al., as Trustees, Respondents.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

Motion to amend remittitur denied. (See 291 N. Y. 6.)
#### Byron Amilcar GARCIA-AVALOS Petitioner v. *455Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-2834

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 5, 2017

Filed: June 8, 2017

Daniel Scott Reeker, Kendall Law Office, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Thomas W. Hussey, Jeffery R. Leist, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Greg Jensen, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Omaha, NE, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Byron Amilear Garcia-Avalos, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying him asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the immigration judge. See Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707, 712-13 (8th Cir. 2012). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.