alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexander FOROUZESH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56355

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed March 12, 2018

Justin Farahi, Farahi Law Firm, APC, Torrance, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Robert J. Guite, Esquire, Sheppard Mul-lin Richter *&*Hampton LLP, San Francis- *777. co, CA, Sascha Von Mende Henry, Fred R. Puglisi, Esquire, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Alexander Forouzesh timely appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of this diversity action, which alleged a variety of California tort and statutory claims. On de novo review of this dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012), we affirm.

The statutory claims fail as a matter of law because no reasonable consumer would think (for example) that a 12-ounce “iced” drink, such as iced coffee or iced tea, contains 12 ounces of coffee or tea and no ice. See Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying the “reasonable consumer” standard to California claims and upholding the dismissal with prejudice of a similarly speculative claim).

The fraud claim'fails for the same reason because (even assuming that there was a representation) justifiable reliance is absent. See Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 909 P.2d 981, 984 (1996) (holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim).

The claim for breach of express warranty fails because the complaint contains no allegation that Defendant promised that the iced drinks in question would contain a specific amount of liquid, as distinct from a total amount of liquid and ice. See Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp., 944 F.Supp.2d 877, 893-95 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (stating elements of express warranty claim in California).

Finally,1 the district court did not abuse its discretion, Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008), by denying leave to amend. The court permissibly concluded that the defects in Plaintiff’s theories of liability cannot be cured, so that the requested amendment would have been futile.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Plaintiff has waived any argument that dismissal of the additional claims was erroneous, because his opening brief does not address those claims. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          80,600
<SECURITIES>                                   203,282
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,700
<INVENTORY>                                    495,810
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               922,893
<PP&E>                                         865,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 359,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,552,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          401,951
<BONDS>                                        344,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           490
<OTHER-SE>                                     696,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,552,322
<SALES>                                      1,376,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,376,267
<CGS>                                          932,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,272,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   894
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,559
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13
        

</TABLE>
#### Frederick Tayton DENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BAR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56771

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

*618Frederick Tayton Dencer, Pro Se

Sean T. Strauss, Esquire, State Bar of California, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *618*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Frederick Tayton Dencer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his California State Bar disbarment proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Dencer’s action is a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. *See Scheer v. Kelly,*817 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016) (as-applied constitutional claims are barred under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *Cooper v. Ramos,*704 F.3d 772, 777-79 (9th Cir. 2012) *(Rooker-Feldman*doctrine bars district court from exercising jurisdiction over a “de facto” appeal of a state court decision and claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision); *Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,*474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state courts purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 23







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-109669, 333-106292 and 333-106292-01) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-54993, 333-57220, 333-16201, 333-34776, 333-45084, 333-45082, 333-37392, 333-107013, 333-69079, 333-121152, 333-121153 and 333-121155) of Energy East Corporation of our report dated March 1, 2006, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 1, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                     JAN-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                            13,333,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,332,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   1,340,000
<PP&E>                           154,018,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   (12,614,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   157,409,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              3,563,000
<BONDS>                           56,732,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                         106,358,000
<OTHER-SE>                        (9,244,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     157,409,000
<SALES>                            6,085,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   6,243,000
<CGS>                              2,625,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,532,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      40,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,359,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,312,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (169,000)
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,143,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .12


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries:

1. General

Western Beef Inc. conducts its retail and wholesale food business directly and
through nine consolidated wholly-owned subsidiaries as follows:

Western Beef Retail, Inc.           (Successor by mergers dated January   
                                    29, 1998 between Western Beef - 14th  
                                    Street, Inc. et al into Western Beef  
                                    Metropolitan Avenue, Inc. and August  
                                    10, 1998 between Western Beef         
                                    Retail, Inc. and Western Beef         
                                    Administration, Inc.)                 

Western Beef Properties, Inc. (Formerly known as East Central Meats, Inc.)

Western Beef Supermarket, Inc.

Food Nation, Inc.

Awesome Transportation, Inc.

W.B.I. International, Inc.

W.B. Manalapan, Inc.

W.B. Rahway, Inc.

W.B. Sayerville, Inc. (inactive corporation)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11422-11423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-3-34-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with 
an effective date of April 1, 1997:

Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 8A
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 8A.01
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 8A.02
Seventheenth Revised Sheet No. 8B
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 8B.01

    FGT states that Section 27 of the General Terms and Conditions 
(GTC) of its Tariff provides for the recovery by FGT of gas used in the 
operation of its system and gas lost from the system or otherwise 
unaccounted for. The fuel reimbursement charges pursuant to Section 27 
consist of the Fuel Reimbursement Charge Percentage (FRCP), designed to 
recover current fuel usage on an in-kind basis, and the Unit Fuel 
Surcharge (UFS), designed to recover or refund previous under or 
overcollections on a cash basis. Both the FRCP and the UFS are 
applicable to Market Area deliveries and are effective for seasonal 
periods, changing effective each April 1 (for the Summer Period) and 
each October 1 (for the Winter Period).
    FGT states that it is filing to establish an FRCP of 2.85% to 
become effective April 1, 1997 based on the actual company fuel use, 
lost and unaccounted for volumes, and Market Area deliveries for the 
period from April 1, 1996 through September 31, 1996. FGT states that 
it is also filing to establish a Summer Period UFS of ($0.0132) per 
MMBtu to become effective April 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426 in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the

[[Page 11423]]

Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6107 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      26,208,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,000,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            11,475,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                120,954,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     139,307,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       139,568,000
<LOANS>                                    308,554,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,972,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             506,075,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 449,546,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,376,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,978,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,175,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             506,075,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,904,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,039,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               262,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,205,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,933,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,272,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  435,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,204,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,108,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,108,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,463,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.49
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,480,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   266,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,713,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  200,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    24,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,972,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,972,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
ELECTRONIC RECORD

/578-/V

COA # 05-12-01061-CR

Darrell Dewayne Sneed v. The

STYLE: State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM

OFFENSE: 30.02F1

COUNTY: Dallas

TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 7

DATE: 10/30/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F11-60730-Y

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Darrell Dewayne Sneed v. The State

STYLE: of Texas

PROSE Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

KefutiTb

DATE: aiLfpy(&o/r I

JUDGE: dd &L/tVUMrtT—

CCA#: iS7$«/y

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARONEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,539,000
<SECURITIES>                                37,133,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,819,000
<PP&E>                                       4,983,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,663,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,901,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,560,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,706,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,901,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,876,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,422,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,422,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,422,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marwan Isa BELION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17687 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 8, 2018)

Nancy J. Hess, Edwin F. Knight, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Christopher P. Canova, Jor-dane E. Learn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rachel Renee Seaton-Virga, Virga Law Offices, PA, Panama .City, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marwan Belion appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Belion argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his vehicle subsequent to his arrest for a state offense.

We review whether a voluntary unconditional guilty plea waives a defendant’s ability to appeal adverse' rulings of pre-trial motions *de novo. See United States v. Patti,*337 F.3d 1317, 1320, 1320 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). By entering a voluntary unconditional guilty plea, a defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings. *Id.*at 1320. We will not consider a defendant’s challenge to the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress if that issue was not preserved in a conditional plea. *United States v. McCoy,*477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).

A defendant who wishes to preserve appellate review of a non-jurisdictional defect while' at the same time pleading guilty can do so only by entering a conditional plea in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). *United States v. Pierre,*120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997). The conditional plea must be in writing and must be consented to by the court and by the government. *Id.*

*984Here, Belion has waived any review of the denial of his motion to suppress. Belion entered an unconditional guilty plea and only reserved his right to challenge his sentence on appeal. Thus, Belion has waived any review of the denial of his motion to suppress by failing to properly preserve appellate review.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 12.01**

 

**PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF**

**RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

*(amounts in thousands of dollars)*

 
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **Year  Ended Dec. 31,** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **2009**                      | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** | **2007** | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** |
| Earnings  as defined:                                 |       |                          |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Pretax  income from operations                        |       | $                             | 493,725    |   | $ | 506,424 |   | $ | 431,251 |   | $ | 323,159 |   | $ | 281,657 |   |
| Add:  Fixed charges                                   |       | 224,041                       |       | 199,739 |   | 311,377 |   | 264,672 |   | 263,516 |   |
| Earnings  as defined                                  |       | $                             | 717,766    |   | $ | 706,163 |   | $ | 742,628 |   | $ | 587,831 |   | $ | 545,173 |   |
|                                                  |       |                          |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed  charges:                                       |       |                          |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest  charges                                     |       | $                             | 166,212    |   | $ | 154,313 |   | $ | 180,230 |   | $ | 137,493 |   | $ | 144,835 |   |
| Interest  charges on life insurance policy borrowings |       | 324                           |       | 248 |   | 105,396 |   | 117,536 |   | 107,610 |   |
| Interest  component of leases                         |       | 57,505                        |       | 45,178 |   | 25,751 |   | 9,643 |   | 11,071 |   |
| Total  fixed charges                                  |       | $                             | 224,041    |   | $ | 199,739 |   | $ | 311,377 |   | $ | 264,672 |   | $ | 263,516 |   |
| Ratio  of earnings to fixed charges                   |       | 3.2                           |       | 3.5 |   | 2.4 |   | 2.2 |   | 2.1 |   |

 

----