alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary L. BECKNER, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-55849

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 26, 2018

*698Mary L. Beckner, Pro Se

Colin Dailey, Attorney, John. W. Am-berg, Esquire, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This matter has been stayed since February 2, 2015, pending issuance of the mandate in *Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A.,*No. 10-56884, or further order of the court. We hereby lift the stay.

Mary L. Beckner appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Kwan v. SanMedica Int'l,*854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017); We affirm.

Dismissal of Beckner’s FDCPA claims was proper because the alleged communication was not an attempt to collect a “debt” as defined by the FDCPA. *See Ho v. ReconTrust Co.,*858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[Ajctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure ... are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”); *Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,*852 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity ... *only*through Section 1692f(6)” and that “[a]s for the remaining FDCPA provisions, ‘debt collection’ refers only to the collection of a money debt”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on ReconTrust Company’s motion to dismiss without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R, 7-15; *Carpinteria, Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara,*344 F.3d 822, 832 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court was within its discretion to dispense with oral argument.” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Beckner’s “objection and challenge to court order refusal and rebuttal” (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.

Beckner’s requests to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 12 *&*27) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT23.01**

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-81791 on Form S-3;Registration Statement No. 333-104504 on Form S-3; and Registration StatementNo. 333-106011 on Form S-4 of our report dated March 3, 2005, relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K for Public Service Company of Colorado for the year endedDecember 31, 2004.

 
| /S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Minneapolis, Minnesota         |
| March 3, 2005                  |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Abcor Products, Inc.
(the "Company") certifies that:

1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
August 31, 2002 (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 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.

July 8, 2005                         /s/ Jeremy Feakins
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Jeremy Feakins (Chief Executive
                                      Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
# C_2022165EN.01004201.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/42

---

Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Adega Ponte da Boga v EUIPO — Viñedos y Bodegas Dominio de Tares (P3 DOMINIO DE TARES)

(Case T-107/22)

(2022/C 165/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adega Ponte da Boga, SL (Ourense, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viñedos y Bodegas Dominio de Tares, SA (San Román de Bembibre, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark P3 DOMINIO DE TARES — European Union trade mark No 16 691 651

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2021 in Case R 479/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and any interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and any interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Pedro JUAREZ-LORENZO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73383

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anna E. Juarez, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Juarez-Lorenzo, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Lorenzo’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed six years after his order of removal became final, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies, *see*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3), 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia deportation order may be filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice of the hearing).

Contrary to Juarez-Lorenzo’s contention, the BIA’s decision in *Matter of M-S-,*concerning aliens who do not receive oral warnings of the consequences of failing to appear, does not provide an independent basis for untimely reopening of his removal proceedings to apply for relief from removal. 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-7 (BIA 1998) (filing deadline applies to motions to reopen based on lack of oral notice).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 jjjjs deposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 AN NE T HE NG I O; KI R I ON HE NG I O, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73709 A ge nc yN os . A 099- 634- 497

A 099- 634- 498 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nn etH engi o and K i ri on H engi o, nat i ves and ci t i ze ns of M i cr on es i a, p e titio n f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ o r d e rd is m is s in g th e ir appealfr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng thei r r equestfor a c ont i nua nc e . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED MA R 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73709 2 abuse of di sc re t i on the deni alof a c on t i nu ance , Sa ndoval-L un a v. Mukasey , 526 F . 3 d1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (p er cu ri am ), an dw e rev i ew d e n o v o du e p ro cess c la im s , id . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he a ge nc ydi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on orvi ol a t e due pr oc e s s i n de ny i ng the H e n g io s ’ r e q u e s t f

o rac o n tin u a n c e b e c au s e th e yd idn o t d e m o n s tr a te g o o dc au s e . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 ; A hm ed v. H older , 569 F . 3d 1009, 1012 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (f ac t ors c on si dere d i n d et erm i ni ng w hether the deni alof a c on t i nu ance const i tut es a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on i nc l ude the na tur e of the e vi de nc e e xc l ude d a s ar e s ul tof the d e n ia l an dth e n u m b e ro f c o n tin u a n c e s p r e v io u s lyg r an te d ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 1 OF 
FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,860
<SECURITIES>                                    24,418
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,173
<PP&E>                                          12,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,277
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,472
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,392
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,894)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.52)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-604.

#### EM Ltd. et al. *v.*Republic of Argentina et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of A.P. Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, John B. Whelan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|May 16, 2011           
|                       
|/s/ John B. Whelan     
|John B. Whelan         
|Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023179EN.01004101.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Fun Factory v EUIPO — I Love You (love you so much)

(Case T-306/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark love you so much - Earlier EU figurative mark I LOVE YOU SINCE FOREVER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fun Factory GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and T. Frydendahl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: I Love You, Inc. (Lewes, Delaware, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 March 2022 (Case R 1464/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11 

                 LILLIAN VERNON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
     Computation of Earnings Per Share Assuming Primary and Full Dilution 
                   (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts) 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THIRD QUARTER ENDED              NINE MONTHS ENDED 
                                              ------------------------------  ------------------------------ 
                                                NOVEMBER 23,    NOVEMBER 25,    NOVEMBER 23,    NOVEMBER 25, 
                                                    1996            1995            1996            1995 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
<S>                                           <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income ..................................      $8,677          $8,426          $2,951         $ 5,103 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
Primary Shares: 
 Average number of shares outstanding  ......       9,666           9,749           9,670           9,721 
 Assumed exercise of stock options ..........          --             208               7             301 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
                                                    9,666           9,957           9,677          10,022 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
Earnings Per Share Assuming Primary Dilution       $  .90          $  .85          $  .30         $   .51 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
Fully Diluted Shares: 
 Average number of shares outstanding  ......       9,666           9,749           9,670           9,721 
 Assumed exercise of stock options ..........          --             212               7             303 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
                                                    9,666           9,961           9,677          10,024 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 
Earnings Per Share Assuming Full Dilution  ..      $  .90          $  .85          $  .30         $   .51 
                                              --------------  --------------  --------------  -------------- 

                
                                                           Page 12 of 12


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                  CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


                                       For the three         For the six
                                       months ended          months ended
                                         June 30,              June 30,
                                   -------------------   -------------------
                                     1997       1996       1997       1996
                                   --------   --------   --------   --------

Net income......................   $  1,820   $  5,235   $  8,019   $  8,951
Dividends paid on preferred 
  stock.........................          -       (765)         -     (1,531)
                                   --------   --------   --------   --------
Amount available to common
  shareholders..................   $  1,820   $  4,470   $  8,019   $  7,420
                                   ========   ========   ========   ========
Weighted average number of 
  common shares outstanding.....     36,765     30,461     36,685     30,299
                                   ========   ========   ========   ========
Net income per common share.....   $   0.05   $   0.15   $   0.22   $   0.24
                                   ========   ========   ========   ========


           CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
                                (IN THOUSANDS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


                                       For the three         For the six
                                       months ended          months ended
                                         June 30,              June 30,
                                   -------------------   -------------------
                                     1997       1996       1997       1996
                                   --------   --------   --------   --------
Shares outstanding from 
  beginning of period...........     35,549     28,253     35,217     28,150

57 and 389 stock options 
  exercised in the three and 
  six months ended June 30, 
  1997, respectively............         31          -        237          -

451 and 554 stock options and 
  warrants exercised in the
  three and six months ended 
  June 30, 1996, respectively...          -        261          -        186

Common stock equivalents of
  stock options/(1)/............      1,185      1,947      1,231      1,963
                                   --------   --------   --------   --------
                                     36,765     30,461     36,685     30,299
                                   ========   ========   ========   ========

(1)  The calculation of common stock equivalents of stock options is based on
     the "Treasury Method" as detailed in Accounting Principles Board Opinion
     No. 15.