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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DALE E. PHILLIPS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SOUTH COAST PLAZA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56070 

D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00812-AG-JDE 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Dale E. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a trespass warning he received from South 

Coast Plaza mall. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under 

* 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

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-56070 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 

(9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s § 1983 action because 

Phillips failed to allege facts sufficient to show the violation of a constitutional 

right, or the presence of state action. See Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th

Cir. 2015) (“Dismissal of a § 1983 claim following a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is 

proper if the complaint is devoid of factual allegations that give rise to a plausible 

inference of either element.”); id. at 1035-36 (setting forth elements of § 1983 

claim); Brewster v. Board of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 

981 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth elements of procedural due process claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend 

because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review 

and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment 

would be futile). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2007139EN.01001601.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4613 — Eurazeo S.A./Apcoa Parking Holdings Gmbh)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 139/03)

On 20 April 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4613. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4613. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O

. P D-1385-14

K E N N E T H G E R H A R T A N D R E W , Appellan t

v.

THE S TATE O F TEXAS

ORDER P URSUANT TO TEXAS RULE S OF AP P ELL ATE PR OCEDURE RULE 9.10

P e r c u r i a m
.

O R D E R

T h i s c a u s e i s b e f

o r e t h i s C o u r t o n p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w f r o m C o u r t o f

A p p e a l s c a s e n u m b e r 1 4

- 0 7

- 0 0 2 4 1

- C R
, t r i a l c o u r t c a s e n u m b e r 1 0 5 8 1 7 1 i n t h e 1 7 7 t h

D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f H a r r i s C o u n t y

.

T h e C l e r k o f t h i s C o u r t h a s d i s c o v e r e d s e n s i t i v e d a t a i n t h e r e c o r d

, n a m e l y : the

name of the complainant who w as a minor T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art 57.02(h)

. T E X

. R

. A P P

.

P

. R u l e 9

. 1 0 ( a )

. P u r s u a n t t o T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 9

. 1 0

, t h e C l e r k s o u g h t a

r u l i n g f r o m t h e C o u r t a n d t h e r e a f t e r n o t i f i e d t h e p a r t i e s

. T h e C o u r t n o w o r d e r s t h e C l e r kRule 9.10 Order - 2

o f t h i s C o u r t t o r e d a c t o r s e a l t h e d i s c o v e r e d s e n s i t i v e d a t a f r o m t h e r e c o r d s i d e n t i f

i e d a n d

l i s t e d b e l o w

. T h e C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r s t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k

, t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s , o r a n y e n t i t y o r i n d i v i d u a l p o s s e s s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t s t o r e d a c t o r s e a l

t h e d o c u m e n t s p u r s u a n t t o t h i s o r d e r :

1

. C l e r k ’ s R e c o r d

2

. R e p o r t e r ’ s R e c o r d

3

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r i e f ( f i l e d i n t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s )

4

. P e t i t i o n f

o r D i s c r e t i o n a r y R e v i e w

F i l e d : M a y 2 7
, 2 0 1 5

D o n o t p u b l i s h
# C_2007145EN.01001001.xml

| 30.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4693 — Veolia/Sulo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 145/03)

On 19 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4693. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4693. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0181

Issued: January 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On November 19, 2020 appellant sought an appeal from a purported November 18, 2020 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0181.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited 

to final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The November 18, 2020 decision, however, was a Board decision 

assigned Docket No. 20-1027, which affirmed a November 1, 2019 OWCP decision.3 There is no 

final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the filing of this appeal. As there is no 

1

5 U.S.C. §8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3 Docket No. 20-1027 (issued November 18, 2020).
2

final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the filing of this appeal, 4 over which 

the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

21-0181 must be dismissed. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0181 is dismissed.5

Issued: January 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Supra note 2.

5 Appellant’s petition for reconsideration in Docket No. 20-1027 will be addressed under separate order.
##### 



Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15a-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
  (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 Trust.
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEEFORPERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTDate: March 15, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President,Royalty Management
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>  
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                      <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAY-31-1998             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JUN-01-1997             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        NOV-29-1997             AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                   16,097                  12,501
<SECURITIES>                                  0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             8,281                   8,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0                       0
<INVENTORY>                               9,123                   8,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         35,385                  33,077
<PP&E>                                   19,548                  20,135
<DEPRECIATION>                            9,816                  10,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           54,507                  52,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     9,414                   7,830
<BONDS>                                       0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                   0                       0
<COMMON>                                    677                     674
<OTHER-SE>                               43,619                  43,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             54,507                  52,382
<SALES>                                  29,521                  14,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         29,521                  14,596
<CGS>                                    19,829                   9,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            28,294                  18,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             80                       8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           28                      15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,539                     598
<INCOME-TAX>                                615                     239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         923                     359
<DISCONTINUED>                                0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0                       0
<CHANGES>                                     0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                923                     359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.21                    0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.20                    0.08
        

</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM ALLBRIGHT, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. STANDARD ROOFING COMPANY AND JOSEPH HELLER, DEFENDANTS-PROSECUTORS.

Argued January 20, 1932

Decided May 6, 1932.

Before Justices Tkenchaed and Donges.

For the petitioner-respondent, *Philip Dean Cohen (Frank Cohen,*of counsel).

For the defendants-proseeutors in *certiorari, Nathaniel Weltcheh.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

A petition for compensation was filed with the workmen’s compensation bureau by William Allbright against Standard Roofing Company, and the trial before the deputy compensation commissioner resulted in a determination and judgment in favor of the petitioner. The matter was appealed to the Union County Court of Common Pleas and there the judgment below was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed. Thereupon the petitioner entered his judgment in the latter court against Joseph Heller, trading as Standard Roofing *647Company. Objection was made to the entry in this matter and a motion was made to vacate the judgment against Joseph Heller, and a counter-motion was made by the petitioner to be permitted to amend all pleadings *nunc pro tunc*so as to conform to the judgment as entered. The petitioner’s motion was granted and we think rightly. It was justified under section 126 of the Practice act of 1903 in the circumstances of the present case. The original answer filed in the workmen’s compensation proceeding was signed “Standard Roofing Company by Joseph Heller Respondent.” The affidavit attached thereto was sworn to by “Joseph Heller Respondent,” and states that “Joseph Heller, of full age, being duly sworn according to law, on his oath deposes and says: That he is the respondent named in the foregoing answer to claim petition; that he has read the same and is familiar with the contents thereof; and that the matters and things therein set forth are true according to the best of his knowledge and belief.” That affidavit was sworn to before a master in chancery who was at the time the attorney for the prosecutor of this writ. In view of Joseph Heller’s sworn statement that he was the respondent in the workmen’s compensation proceeding, the court below was entitled to assume, and did assume, that the Standard Roofing Company and Joseph Heller were identical. There was and is no contention that Standard Roofing Company is a corporation, nor was anything offered in the court below to dispute the claim that Standard Roofing Company was merely the trade name of Joseph Heller and that the latter is the real party in interest.

In view of these facts the amendment of the pleadings was properly allowed to the extent of completely naming the respondent as Joseph Heller, trading as Standard Roofing Company, and such order of the court below will be affirmed, with costs.
# C_2007105EN.01000201.xml

| 9.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4565 — Cerberus/Bawag)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 105/03)

On 28 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4565. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4565. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.5

                        BELLWETHER EXPLORATION COMPANY 

               MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                        HELD AT THE HOUSTON CENTER CLUB
                                 1100 CAROLINE
                             HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010
                           FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1997

            Present:          Mr. J. Darby Sere (in the chair)
                              Mr. Vincent H. Buckley
                              Mr. A. K. McLanahan
                              Mr. C. Barton Groves
                              Mr. Habib Kairouz
                              Dr. Jack Birks
                              Mr. Townes G. Pressler

            Absent:           Mr. J. P. Bryan
                              Mr. Charles C. Green, III

            In Attendance:    Mr. William C. Rankin
                              Mr. Michael B. Smith
                              Ms. Mary Lou Fry

The Board was presented with a proposal to amend the Bylaws of the Company 
effective November 21, 1997. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was 
unanimously,

     RESOLVED, that Article II, Section 2.2 of the Company's Bylaws
     shall be and hereby is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

          Section 2. Annual meeting of stockholders, commencing
          with the year 1998, shall be held at a time and date
          designated at the discretion of the Board of Directors,
          said time and date to be stated within the notice of the
          meeting, at which they shall elect by a plurality vote a
          board of directors, and transact such other business as
          may properly be brought before the meeting.
#### CHARMICOR, INC., Appellant, v. CHARLES WINDER and AGNES C. WINDER, Respondents.

No. 7408

June 20, 1974

523 P.2d 840

*Charles L. Kellar,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Foley Brothers,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On March 17, 1967, appellant commenced an action against the respondents in the Eighth Judicial District Court. On April 14, 1972, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the action under NRCP 41 (e) on the ground that the case had not been brought to trial within five years. The motion was granted and a judgment of dismissal was entered on May 1, 1972. On May 5, 1972, the notice of entry of judgment was filed and served on the appellant. No appeal was taken from this judgment. On April 1, 1973, nearly a year later, appellant moved the court to vacate the judgment of dismissal. This motion was denied.

The judgment of dismissal for lack of prosecution was an appealable determination. NRAP 3A(b), former NRCP 72 (b); see also Dubin v. Harrell, 79 Nev. 467, 386 P.2d 729 (1963). The present appeal, while ostensibly from the order denying the motion to vacate, requests this court to review the *230judgment of dismissal and is, therefore, untimely. See NRAP 3A(a), former NRGP 72(a), and NRAP 4, former NRCP 73(a).

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
# C_2007212EN.01000201.xml

| 11.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4762 — Autogrill/Alpha Airports Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 212/03)

On 10 August 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4762. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4762. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---