alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIXUAN PAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73772

Agency No. A099-064-616

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Sixuan Pan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUL 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73772

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, and we

remand.

The BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d

1011 (9th Cir. 2011), at the time it reviewed Pan’s appeal. Accordingly, we grant

Pan’s petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider in the first instance

the impact, if any, of Hu on Pan’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and

CAT relief. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian Lee SOTO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11543 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fabian Lee Soto, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian Lee Soto has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*
      *140386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Soto has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

**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.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0911 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-248-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 2.0 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 2 $ 340.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 340

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 2.0 $ 170.00 525 $ 695.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
In The Matter Of: HELOAIR, INC. Respondent 

## SERVED: March 14, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC
) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2012-0472 Case No. 2011-EA-210018

NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION On September 24, 2012, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed, which noted that the location ofthe Hearing would be provided by separateNotice to the parties. PLEASE TAKENOTICE that the Hearing in this case, set to begin onApril17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., will be held at the following location: U.S. Bankruptcy Court 701 East Broad Street, Suite 4000 Courtroom 5000 Richmond, VA 23219 The courthouse opens to the public at 9:00a.m. Easterntime. The Hearing begins at 9:30 a.m. Easterntime. Please allow time to pass through security. Electronic devices including cellular telephones, laptops, and cameras, are not allowed in federal courthouses.

Attachment

- Service List •--;,. -:x r:j ..:..

### . _:**;_.~**FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0472 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL and FAX ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl0001

John G. Butler, III, Respondent's Counsel SANDS ANDERSON PC BankofAmerica Center 

### 1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 Richmond VA 23219 TEL: 804-648-1636 FAX: 804-783-7291 Whit Baldwin, President Heloair, Inc., Respondent 5721 Gu1fstream Road Richmond, VA 23250 ONE COPY

ZacheryM. Berman, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AEA-7 Eastern Region Federal AviationAdministration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699. · The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s tha tthi s c a s e i s s ui t a bl e f orde c i s i on ** w i tho utoral ar gu m ent . F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor a bl e L a rry A . B urns , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** * S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B R Y A N B R A S W E L L , a m a rr i e d pe r s on b u tfi l i n g i n h i s i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. SHOREL I NE FI RE DEPART M ENT, form er l y kno w n as K i ng C ou nty F i re D i s tr i c tN o 4, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 35510 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 9 2 4 - RSM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c a r do S . M a r t i ne z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 20, 2013 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : G R A B E R a n d P A E Z , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d B U RN S , D is tr ic t J u d g e . *** 

# FI LED

MA R 28 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P l ai nt i ff B ry an B ra sw el l appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j udgm e ntt o S hor e l i ne F i r e D e pa r tm e nt . R e vi e w i ng de novo, D i e tr i c h v. J ohn A s c u a g a ’ s N u g g e t , 5 4 8 F. 3 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , w e a f f i r m. 1. In the previ ou s app ea l , w e di d n otdeci de thatP l ai nt i ff had n otre ce i ved due pr oc e s s ; r a the r , tha tque s t i on w a s ope n on r e m a nd. S e e B r a s w e l l v. S hor e l i ne F i re D ep’ t , 62 2 F . 3d 10 99 , 11 03 n. 2 (9t h C i r. 20 10 ) ( "W e not e thatthe di stri ct courtconcl ud ed on l y thatP l ai nt i ff had n o con st i tut i on al ri gh tand t hatD r. S om er s di d n ott ort i ou sl y i nt er fe re w i th P l ai nt i ff’ s e m pl oym ent . Itdi d n otconsi der w hether D r. S om er s m i gh tbe ent i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty . . . , no r di d the court rul e on othe rl e ga l i s s ue s tha tthe pa r t i e s r a i s e d. T hos e i s s ue s r e m a i n ope n on re m and. " ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . 2. W e a ss um e, bu tneed no tdeci de, thatthe ac t i on s t aken i m pl i ca t ed P l ai nt i ff’ s l i berty i nt er es t . A pp l yi ng the three fa ct ors f rom M athew s v. E l dri dg e, 42 4 U . S . 31 9, 33 5 (19 76 ), t o the fa ct s of thi s c as e, w e c on cl ud e thatP l ai nt i ff recei v ed co n st i tu t i o n al l y ad eq u at e p ro cess. M o stsi g n i fi can t l y, b efo re D r. S o m ers’ de c i s i on be c a m e f

i na l , P l a i nt i f

f s ubm i tt e d a w r i tt e n s t a t e m e nt , ha d tw o i n- pe r s on m e e t i ngs w i th de c i s i on- m a ke r s , a nd ha d a n oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond t o a c c ount s by o th er w i tn esses. AF F I RME D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0372

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until April 20, 2023, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2023

03/09/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0372
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that th i s

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-10417

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

HARRY DEAN HAYNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; RAYMOND VILLARREAL; CANALAS, LVN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas

(5:95-CV-183-BA)

November 21, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that the motion by Harry Dean Haynes for

reinstatement of his appeal is GRANTED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that

Haynes’ motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. See Haynes v. Scott , 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997).-2-

Haynes argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to

enter final judgment. In light of Haynes’ written consent to

proceed to judgment before the m agistrate judge, the magistrate

judge had juris diction. S ee Neals v. Norwood

, 59 F.3d 530, 532

(5th Cir. 1995).

Haynes argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion

by dismissing Haynes’ suit with prejudice for want of prosecution.

T here is indication in the record that the clerk of the court’s

office had Haynes’ th en-current address, although his change-ofaddress lette r was not filed in the case. Moreover, there is

nothing in the record i ndicating that the magistrate judge

considered a lesser sanction before dismissing with prejudice.

Under these circumstances, the magistrate abused his discretion by

dismiss ing Haynes’ suit with prejudice for want of prosecution.

See McNeal v. Papasan , 842 F.2d 787, 789-93 (5th Cir. 1988).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgme nt is VACATED and the

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.
|   | 1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or      78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May 14,      2010               | /s/ David M. Bradley               |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated                                                                                                 | David      M. Bradley              |
|                                                                                                  | Chairman,      President & CEO |

----
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-47V

Filed: July 31, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

GLENN HENDERSON, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Edward M. Kraus, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.

Gordon E. Shemin, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On July 31, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that he did not 

incur any costs in pursuit of his petition. Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and 

costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in

petitioner’s application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends his application for 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

attorneys’ fees and costs to $55,000.00. Respondent does not object to this amount. The 

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $55,000.00,

representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a 

check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Edward Kraus, in the amount of 

$55,000.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Joseph C. Mascari, alias Joseph C. Patane, Appellant.

Argued October 11, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*Stanley Bliss, A. G. Waldo*and *Howard Zeller*for appellant.

*Clarence E. Conley, District Attorney (Nelson L. Neidhardt*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman,.Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ. .
From: Irene Howie

To: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Subject: AirTanker Services DOT-OST-2013-0109

Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 4:05:20 PM

Bob,

In reference to the Application of AirTanker Services Limited, Docket Number DOTOST-2013-0109, this will confirm the application includes a request for the full scope 

of rights available to conduct foreign charter air cargo transportation between any 

point in the United States and any other point or points.

Kind regards,

Irene

Irene E. Howie

Law Offices

13 Decatur Avenue

Annapolis, MD 21403

T: 410-267-7228

F: 410-267-7246

ihowie@verizon.net

This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and may contain information that is 

confidential or privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you must not read, copy, use or disclose this information. Please also 

notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


    <ARTICLE>                        5
    <LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
9/26/99 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE THREE  MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                     37509
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              17070
<ALLOWANCES>                                1425
<INVENTORY>                                 5102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           65731
<PP&E>                                     16867
<DEPRECIATION>                              8531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             83825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      16246
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     296
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                 67169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               83825
<SALES>                                    42186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           42186
<CGS>                                      13038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              13038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           41137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            2946
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10357)
<DISCONTINUED>                              2246
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8111)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.28)



</TABLE>
#### Todd OUELLETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-35426

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*973Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Todd Ouellette, Pro Se

Shane Anthony Vannatta, Attorney, Worden Thane, P.C., Missoula, MT, Scott Wilkens, Jenner *&*Block LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Todd Ouellette appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Digital Millennium .Copyright Act arising from Viacom’s alleged misrepresentation that Ouellette infringed its copyrighted materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), *Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles,*179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ouellette’s action because Ouellette failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief under 17 U.S.G. § 612(f). *See Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am. Inc.,*391 F.3d 1000, 1004-06 (9th Cir. 2004) (liability for improper infringement notifications under § 612(f) requires “a demonstration of some actual knowledge of misrepresentation on the part of the copyright owner”); *Fajardo,*179 F.3d at 699*(“A*judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”); *see also Carlson v. Reed,*249 F.3d 876, 878 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting as frivolous plaintiffs contention that the court improperly granted a Rule 12(c) motion before defendant completed responses to interrogatories).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Ouellette’s second amended complaint without further leave to amend after concluding that Ouellette received ample notice of the pleading requirements for his claim and an opportunity to amend his pleading. *See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting “when a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as unsupported by the record Ouellette’s contention that the district court was required to do more to help him state a claim.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the
Board of Directors of


Asian
Financial, Inc. and Subsidiaries







We
consent to the use of our report dated September 5, 2008, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Asian Financial, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June
30, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income and other
comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended June 30, 2008, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended June 30, 2008.







/s/ Moore
Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP





Walnut,
California


March 10,
2009