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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID ZAITZEFF, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipality; 

DANIEL SATTERBERG, King County 

Prosecutor, those in privity with him, in re 

RCW 9.41.250 and Sea v Evans, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35955 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00244-BAT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted November 15, 2017***

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

David Zaitzeff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

NOV 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35955 

for lack of standing his action alleging that Revised Washington Code section 

9.41.250 and Seattle Municipal Code sections 12A.14.080 and.083 violate his First 

and Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co., 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). We 

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zaitzeff’s action because Zaitzeff 

failed to allege facts sufficient to establish constitutional standing to bring a preenforcement challenge to a statute. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights 

Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth factors to consider in 

evaluating genuineness of a claimed threat of prosecution); San Diego Cty. Gun 

Rights Comm’n v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must show a 

“genuine threat of imminent prosecution” (citation and quotation marks omitted));

see also Libertarian Party v. Bowen, 709 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (in First 

Amendment context, courts consider “whether the prosecuting authorities have 

communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history 

of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute”).

AFFIRMED.
TRAVOIS, INC., et al., Appellant-Respondent, v. VITALSPIRIT, LLC., et al., Respondent-Appellant.

WD 80435 (C/w WD 80467)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: February 27, 2018

Attorney: Jason L. Bush, for Appellant-Respondents

Gregory P. Forney, for Respondent-Appellants

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

*512Travois, Inc. and Travois Asset Management, LLC appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County awarding damages on their claims of breach of the duty of loyalty and misappropriation of trade secrets arguing the trial court erred in reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury. The defendants in the underlying action, VitalSpirit, LLC, Lorna Fogg, and Robin Thorne, cross-appeal raising five points that can essentially be summarized into two claims: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in striking their pleadings and entering an interlocutory default judgment as sanctions for their discovery misconduct and (2) the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on insufficient evidence to support the award of punitive damages. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b).
Summary of Annual Base Salaries of Synovus' Named Executive Officers.



 Exhibit 10.32 
 Synovus Financial Corp.’s 
 Annual Base Salaries for Named Executive
Officers 
 Set forth below are the base salaries for persons identified as “named executive officers” of
Synovus Financial Corp. (“Synovus”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors: 
  

							
	 Name
	  	 Title
	  	Base Salary	 
	Kessel D. Stelling	  	President and Chief Executive Officer	  	$	875,000	  
	Richard E. Anthony	  	Chairman of the Board and Former Chief Executive Officer	  	 	928,200	  
	Thomas J. Prescott	  	EVP and Chief Financial Officer	  	 	387,000	  
	Roy Dallis Copeland, Jr.    	  	EVP and Chief Banking Officer	  	 	315,000	  
	Samuel F. Hatcher	  	EVP, General Counsel and Secretary	  	 	325,000	  
	Elizabeth R. James	  	Former Vice Chairman, Chief Information Officer and Chief People Officer	  	 	431,000
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 10
- 00123
- CR IN RE JOHN LAWRENCE MONK
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator John Lawrence Monk seeks mandamus relief against the respondent trial judge on the allegat ion that the trial court has failed to rule on Monk’s motion for DNA testing and his motion for appointment of counsel in that proceeding. Monk complains that he cannot appeal the trial judge’s ruling without a written order denying his motion.
Monk asse rts that the motion for DNA testing was filed on April 30, 2009, but his record does not contain that motion. A certified copy of the motion for appointment of counsel shows that it was filed on May 4, 2009, so we assume that the motion for DNA testing wa s filed on or about that date as well. Monk’s record also includes a certified copy of the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and proposed orderIn re Monk Page 2

denying DNA testing and appointment of counsel. Monk asserts that he received that
docu ment on May 28, 2009. A trial judge has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); In re Marti nez Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683

- 84 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). But that duty generally does not arise until the movant has brought the motion to the trial judge’s attention,
and mandamus will not lie unless the movant makes such a sho wing and the trial judge
then fails or refuses to rule within a reasonable time. See Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. Monk’s record contains certified copies of two letters, dated August 28, 2009 and September 9, 2009, respectively. Each letter is addressed to “Dear Sir/Madam,” and each requests that the matter be brought to the trial judge’s attention and that a written order be entered on Monk’s motion for DNA testing because he cannot appeal in the
absence of an order. Because these letters do not disclose the addressee, we cannot say that the matter has been brought to the trial judge’s attention. Moreover, mere filing of a pleading or letter with the clerk does not impute knowledge to the trial court. See In re Flores, No. 04

- 03

- 00449

- CV, 2003 WL 2148096 4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio June 25, 2003, orig. proceeding). The record thus does not show that Monk has brought the matter to the attention of the trial judge. Because Monk has not shown he is entitled to relief on the record before us, we deny the petiti on for writ of mandamus.In re Monk Page 3 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed May 19 , 2010 Do not publish [OT06]
HAMLET H.M.A., LLC v. HERNANDEZ

425A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 12, 2019

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, For Hernandez, Pedro (M.D.)

William S. F. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Rebecca C. Huntington, Attorney at Law, For Hamlet H.M.A., LLC D/B/A Sandhills Regional Medical Center

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of April 2019 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of April 2019."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 26th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.

Davis, J. recused
Form of Second Letter Amd. (2011) to Performance RSU Award Agrmnt. (OCF Version)



 Exhibit 10.2(I) 

[Yahoo! Inc. Letterhead] 

                    , 2011 

 

	 	Re:	Letter Amendment to Performance Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (OCF Version - 2009) 


Dear                 : 

Reference is made to the Performance Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (OCF Version) between you and Yahoo! Inc. (the
“Company”) dated February 25, 2009 (the “Award Agreement”), and the letter agreement amending the Award Agreement between you and the Company dated February 25, 2010 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used
in this letter agreement and the attached exhibit and not otherwise defined herein or therein will have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Award Agreement. 
 The purpose of this letter agreement is to amend the Award Agreement and the Amendment to provide that, for the 2011 Performance Year, the number of the Restricted Stock Units (if any) that will be
credited to you with respect to such Performance Year will not be determined under Exhibit A attached to the Award Agreement or Exhibit 1 attached to the Amendment but will instead be determined in accordance with Exhibit 1 attached to this letter
agreement. 
 This letter agreement does not modify any other terms of the Award Agreement or the Amendment except as expressly
set forth above (including, without limitation, the crediting of any Restricted Stock Units to you with respect to the 2009 and 2010 Performance Years and the vesting and payment provisions applicable to any such units). 

If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement with respect to the foregoing matters, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter
and return it to me. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Yahoo! Inc.
	[NAME, TITLE]


  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
		
	By:	 	  

		 	[NAME]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2001           2000           1999           1998            1997
                                                               (A)(C)           (A)            (A)           (A)(D)
                                               ---------      ---------      ---------      ---------      ---------
<S>                                            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Earnings as defined:
Income before provision for income taxes       $ 209,377      $ 350,164      $ 100,207      $  71,520      $(116,507)
Add:
   Interest expense                                1,146          2,425          1,746          4,895          2,832
   Interest portion of rental expense (B)         15,729         20,464         15,106          8,528          2,168
                                               ---------      ---------      ---------      ---------      ---------

Total earnings                                 $ 226,252      $ 373,053      $ 117,059      $  84,943      $(111,507)

Fixed charges as defined:
Interest expense                               $   1,146      $   2,425      $   1,746      $   4,895      $   2,832
Interest portion of rental expense (B)            15,729         20,464         15,106          8,528          2,168
                                               ---------      ---------      ---------      ---------      ---------

Total fixed charges                            $  16,875      $  22,889      $  16,852      $  13,423      $   5,000

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 13.41          16.30           6.95           6.33             --
                                               =========      =========      =========      =========      =========
</TABLE>


(A)    All information prior to 2001 has been restated to give effect to the
       accounting for the merger with GaSonics Corporation in January 2001 under
       the pooling-of-interests method of accounting.

(B)    Reflects the appropriate portion of rental expense representative of an
       interest factor.

(C)    Before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle in
       conjunction with the adoption of SAB 101.

(D)    In the year ended December 31, 1997, Novellus incurred a loss of $92.7
       million, net of an income tax benefit of $23.8 million. Fixed charges for
       this period were $5.0 million.
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 annual report of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended May 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an
      exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Patriot Scientific
      Corporation does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18
      of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: October 13, 2006/s/ David
              H.
              PohlDavid
              H. Pohl*Chief
                Executive Officer*
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     10. (ix)(A)

                                 CONFIDENTIAL
                                 ------------

November 3, 1997



Alan DiGangi
430G West Armitage
Chicago, IL 60614

Dear Al:

This letter confirms our offer to you to remain Executive Vice President,
Appliances, Electronics and Automotive for Montgomery Ward.  You will continue
to serve as a member of the Montgomery Ward Executive Committee under this
Agreement.  Your compensation plan will include the following:

     1.)  Base salary of $425,000 annually, paid semi-monthly.

     2.)  Target bonus on the Performance Management Plan of $125,000. Based
          upon the achievement of superior performance against specific
          objectives for the year, you have the opportunity to earn up to 150%
          of your target bonus. For fiscal 1997, your target bonus of $125,000
          will be guaranteed.

     3.)  You will continue to participate in the senior officer perquisites,
          including; executive medical and annual physical examination. You will
          also participate in any new benefits, retention, and perquisite plans
          that are implemented for the Executive Committee members as a group.

     4.)  You will participate in the Montgomery Ward Special Emergence Bonus
          Plan. A copy of this plan is attached for your review and signature.

     5.)  You will participate in the Wards Executive Committee Severance Plan.
          Please sign and return a copy of the attached documents as acceptance
          of the terms of this Plan.

                                       1
<PAGE>
 
Alan DiGangi
November 3, 1997
Page 2


This agreement has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court on a post-petition
basis.  Therefore, any claims concerning this agreement are "administrative"
claims.

I am happy that you are remaining with Montgomery Ward.  If you are in agreement
with this letter, please sign below and return it to me whereupon it will become
our binding agreement.  I am certain that your experience and knowledge of the
Company will be a valuable asset to us as we move forward and improve Montgomery
Ward's performance.  I look forward to working together to meet our goals.

Sincerely,


/s/ Roger V. Goddu
------------------------------
Roger V. Goddu                
Chairman & C.E.O.             
Montgomery Ward               
                              
                              
/s/ Alan DiGangi              
------------------------------
Alan DiGangi                  
                              
Date:  November 6, 1997       
------------------------------

                                       2
Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We have issued our report dated July 29, 2005 accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Vasomedical,
Inc. and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005.  We
hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  of  said  report  in the
Registration Statements of Vasomedical, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-3 (File
No. 333-34044,  effective April 12, 2000, File No. 333-60341, effective December
28, 1998, File No. 333-33319,  effective August 21, 1997, and File No. 33-62329,
effective  September 18, 1995) and on Forms S-8 (File No.  333-86152,  effective
April  12,  2002,  File  No.  333-42692,  effective  August  1,  2000,  File No.
333-85457,  effective August 18, 1999, File No. 333-85455,  effective August 18,
1999,  File No.  333-60471,  effective  August  3,  1998,  File  No.  333-11579,
effective  September 6, 1996, File No. 333-11581,  effective  September 6, 1996,
and File No. 333- 11583, effective September 6, 1996).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Melville, New York
July 29, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-54]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6474]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Becoming Edvard Munch: Influence, Anxiety, and Myth''

SUMMARY:  Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in 
the exhibition: ``Becoming Edvard Munch: Influence, Anxiety, and 
Myth,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United 
States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant 
to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The 
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about February 14, 
2009, until on or about April 26, 2009, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-
453-8050)). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: December 30, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-54 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. § 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63
      of
      Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of The
      Tube Media Corp. (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to the
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
      2006 (the "Report") that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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


August
              14, 2006
            
            /s/
              David C. Levy**Name:**David C. Levy
              **Title:**President




August
              14, 2006
            
            /s/
              Celestine F. Spoden**Name:**Celestine F. Spoden
              **Title:**Chief Financial
                Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
      disclosure document.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00065

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .G.

- V

. , M.G.

- V., D.G.

- V., and E.G.

- V., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- PA

- 02802 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s termination order is AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant M other or appellant Father because both of them are indigent.

SIGNED August 22, 2018.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

1 The Honorable Michael E. Mery is the presiding judge of the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, retired, was sitting by assignment and signed the order of termination that is the subject of this appe al.
James A. LAYTON, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER and Board of Trustees of Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System, Defendants.

No. COA18-921

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 21, 2019

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: Bart F. MCCLAIN

No. 165P19-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 4, 2019

Bart F. McClain, for McClain, Bart F.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2019 by Petitioner for Emergency Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of June 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 23rd of May 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Scotland County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of June 2019."