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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH TURNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55657 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07521-PA-RAO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Keith Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law claims 

arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-55657 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 

1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Turner’s FDCPA claim under 15

U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because Turner failed to allege facts sufficient to show that 

defendants sought to foreclose without having the present right to possession of the 

property through an enforceable security interest. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)

(prohibiting the taking of any nonjudicial foreclosure action without a present right 

to possession of the property claimed as collateral); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Turner’s motion to 

alter or amend judgment because Turner failed to establish any basis for such 

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). 

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters 

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett 

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# Commission Implementing Decision of 19 March 2014 establishing a specific control and inspection programme for fisheries exploiting            stocks of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the            Mediterranean Sea (notified under document C(2014) 1717) (2014/156/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 19 March 2014

# establishing a specific control and inspection programme for fisheries exploiting stocks of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic                        and the Mediterranean, and for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea                     

# (notified under document C(2014) 1717)

# (2014/156/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1986 of 13 December 2018 establishing specific control and inspection programmes                                 for certain fisheries and repealing Implementing Decisions 2012/807/EU, 2013/328/EU, 2013/305/EU and 2014/156/EU.
STATE v. Samuel SHUFORD.

No. 503P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of September 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for a Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
Van REYPEN v. TEETER.

No. 84PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 1, 2006.

D. Lane Matthews, Charlotte, for Gerald Teeter, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of April 2006 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Van Reypen Associates, Inc.) shall have up to and including the 7th day of June 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of May 2006."
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2023 -CA -0052

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/ b/ a Blue

Cross/ Blue Shield of Louisiana

Versus - - 

Kimberly L. Robinson, in her capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana

Consolidated with the following: 

Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals

Case #: 9927

East Baton Rouge Parish

2023 - CA - 0053

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/ b/ a Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Louisiana

versus

Kimberly L. Robinson, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of

Louisiana

On Application for Rehearing filed on 06/ 19/ 2023 by Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, et al

Rehearing DiN 1 ED

Jewel E. " Duke" Welch Jr. 

a g 0 46

Allison H. Penzato

6,74

7

Walter I. Lanier II

Date z

uL 0 6 2023

Rodd Naqu
STATE v. Stanley Ray JAMES.

No. 315P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 9, 2007.

Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of July 2007 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of July 2007."
# The Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2013 No. 50

Social Security

# The Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

6th March 2013

Coming into operation

1st April 2013

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (1.4.2014) by The Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (S.R. 2014/73),regs. 1, **3**
STATE v. BREWTON.

No. COA06-1511.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (03CRS56368).

Case reported without published opinion No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 323 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 323

    To require persons seeking approval for a liquefied natural gas 
  facility to identify employees and agents engaged in activities to 
         persuade communities of the benefits of the approval.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 17, 2007

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require persons seeking approval for a liquefied natural gas 
  facility to identify employees and agents engaged in activities to 
         persuade communities of the benefits of the approval.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PROPONENTS OF APPROVAL OF LIQUIFIED 
              NATURAL GAS FACILITIES.

    (a) Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Requiring FERC Approval.--The 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall--
            (1) require an applicant for approval, by the Commission 
        under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.), of the 
        siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied 
        natural gas facility to identify each of the employees and 
        agents of the applicant that are engaged, directly or 
        indirectly, in activities to persuade communities of the 
        benefits of the approval; and
            (2) maintain a publicly available database listing the 
        names of the employees and agents.
    (b) Off-Shore Liquified Natural Gas Facilities.--The Secretary of 
Transportation and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
Guard is operating shall--
            (1) require an applicant for approval, by the appropriate 
        Secretary under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 
        et seq.), of the siting, construction, expansion, or operation 
        of a liquefied natural gas facility to identify each of the 
        employees and agents of the applicant that are engaged, 
        directly or indirectly, in activities to persuade communities 
        of the benefits of the approval; and
            (2) maintain a publicly available database listing the 
        names of the employees and agents.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. DUBOSE.

No. COA06-1376.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Johnston (04CRS56690, 05CRS13408, 05CRS13409).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP NESTOR/2/2014Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP NESTOR/2/2014 of 24 July 2014 on the acceptance of third States' contributions            to the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR) (2014/645/CFSP)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP NESTOR/2/2014                     

# of 24 July 2014

# on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the                        Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)                     

# (2014/645/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2012/389/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity                           Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)(1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to                              take the relevant decisions on acceptance of proposed contributions by third States.

(2)Following the recommendation on a contribution from Australia by the Civilian Operations Commander, the contribution from                              Australia should be accepted.

(3)In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to                              the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation                              of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

1.The contribution from Australia to the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa                        (EUCAP NESTOR) is accepted and is considered to be significant.                  

2.Australia is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUCAP NESTOR.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2014.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 40.
Exhibit 32.1

          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 Annual Report of Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carroll
Shelby, President 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 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.


Date: September 28, 2004        /s/ CARROLL SHELBY
                                ------------------
                                    Carroll Shelby,

                                      President
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6


May 7, 2003


Ms. Sandra L. Boyle
Executive Vice President
Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated
400 South El Camino Real, Suite 1100
San Mateo, CA 94402


RE: Supplemental Retirement Benefits


Dear Ms. Boyle:

This letter supersedes and replaces that certain letter dated December 31, 2000,
setting forth the terms of your Supplemental Retirement Benefits. By signing
below, you acknowledge and agree that the letter has been amended to reflect the
termination of the Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan Trust (also known as
the Rabbi Trust), the immediate full vesting of all benefits, the reduction of
the age at which benefits may commence to 60 from 65, and a reduction in your
Dollar Cap to $125,000 from $150,000.

The Company has approved an age 60 supplemental pension for you, with an annual
benefit equal to 3% of your highest average base salary and bonus for 3 out of
your last 10 years of employment with the Company prior to retirement (high 3),
multiplied by your number of years of service with the Company, with the annual
annuity benefit not to exceed 100% of such high 3, subject to an annual dollar
cap of $125,000 ("Dollar Cap"). If benefits commence after age 65, they will be
increased using an interest rate of 6% per year between age 65 and the date
benefits commence, but again subject to the Dollar Cap. For your information,
Robert Batinovich, Glenborough's President and Chief Executive Officer, also has
a dollar cap on his benefits under this program; his dollar cap is set at an
amount equal to the amount of his benefits if he retires at age 70.

Your benefit will be paid monthly for your life with 50% of your monthly amount
paid to your current spouse for his life if he survives you. If you die before
your benefit commences, your spouse will receive monthly payments for his life
equal to 50% of the monthly payments you would have received.

At December 31, 2000, based on your then current years of service and your
highest average compensation as of that date, your age 60 annual benefit, if
fully vested, would be limited to the Dollar Cap of $125,000. Your benefit vests
immediately. Your benefit may increase if




<PAGE>

Ms. Sandra L. Boyle
May 7, 2003
Page 2





your years of service and highest average compensation increase, subject to the
Dollar Cap. Your benefit is subject to the claims of the Company's creditors and
you are a general unsecured creditor with respect to the payment of your
benefit. This letter agreement may only be amended by agreement between you and
the Company. You may not assign this benefit.

We are pleased to provide you with this valuable benefit in recognition of your
exceptional services to the Company.

Sincerely,



/s/ Patrick Foley, Chairman
------------------------------
For the Compensation Committee


ACCEPTED:


/s/ Sandra L. Boyle
------------------------------
Sandra L. Boyle
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5625 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5625

 To amend the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 to provide for a temporary 
    increase in the maximum loan guaranty amount for housing loans 
            guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2008

 Mr. Cleaver introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 to provide for a temporary 
    increase in the maximum loan guaranty amount for housing loans 
            guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MAXIMUM LOAN GUARANTY AMOUNT FOR 
              HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    Section 201(a) of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-185; 122 Stat. 613) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(3) VA guaranteed housing loans.--Notwithstanding 
        subparagraph (C) of section 3703(a)(1) of title 38, United 
        States Code, for purposes of any loan described in that section 
        for which the mortgagee issues a loan commitment during the 
        period beginning on February 13, 2008, and ending at the end of 
        December 31, 2008, the term `maximum guaranty amount' means the 
        dollar amount that is equal to 25 percent of the amount 
        determined under paragraph (2) of this subsection for a single-
        family residence located in the area in which the residence for 
        which the loan is made is located.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3082 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ‘‘Reverend 

Earl Abel Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2008 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. BOND) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ‘‘Reverend Earl Abel Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REVEREND EARL ABEL POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kan7 sas City, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Reverend Earl Abel Post Office Building’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3082 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Reverend Earl Abel 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
STATE v. William Geroy FISHER.

No. 222A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of May 2007 by Defendant for Appointment of Counsel:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2007."
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report
on Form 20-F of Minco Gold Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I hereby 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.







Date:	March 28, 2013





/s/ Ellen Wei

Ellen Wei, Chief Financial Officer
SMITH v. SMITH.

No. COA05-1359.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 19, 2006

Certification Date October 9, 2006.

Appeal from Chatham (97CVD362)

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
In re Theodore S. ROYSTER, Jr.

No. 608A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 12, 2007.

Paul R. Ross, Chairman, James J. Coman, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for Judicial Standards Commission.

J. Calvin Cunningham, Lexington, Nicholas D. Wilson, for Royster.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of January 2007 by Other for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Judicial Standards Commission shall have up to and including the 15th day of February 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of January 2007."
BADROCK v. PICKARD.

No. COA06-1581.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 21, 2007.

Certification Date September 10, 2007.

Appeal from Alamance (02CVD898).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
SANDER v. O'DWYER.

No. COA06-631.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Orange (04CVS907).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
STATE v. Ryan Gabriel GARCELL.

No. 465A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 18, 2007.

Thomas Maher, for Ryan Gabriel Garcell.

Charlie C. Walker, Asheville, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of September 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendant (Garcell) shall have up to and including the 22nd day of October 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of September 2007."