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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS HELLERVIK and THO

HELLERVIK,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

3M COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-56373

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00522-RGKFMO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA, District

Judge.** 

Dennis and Tho Hellervik appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their

complaint for asbestos-related injuries and from its denial of leave to amend their

FILED

JUN 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
complaint. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991,

998 (9th Cir. 2012), we reverse the district court’s denial of leave to amend. We

need not decide whether the complaint was properly dismissed.

“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate

unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by

amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th

Cir. 2003) (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Here, the only reason the district court gave for denying leave to amend was

that the Hellerviks “have already had two chances to state sufficient factual

allegations to support their claims.” This is no reason not to permit amendment of

a complaint. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (identifying “undue

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of

amendment” as the sort of factors that may justify denying leave to amend a

complaint); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1005 (“‘[A] district court should grant leave to

amend . . . unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the

allegation of other facts.’” (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

2000)).

2
Because the district court did not give a legitimate reason for withholding

leave to amend, it abused its discretion. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052

(“A district court’s failure to consider the relevant factors and articulate why

dismissal should be with prejudice instead of without prejudice may constitute an

abuse of discretion.” (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182)). We remand to the district

court so that the Hellerviks may file an amended complaint.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1910 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 498
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1910

                          [Report No. 106-268]

 To amend the Act establishing Women's Rights National Historical Park 
to permit the Secretary of the Interior to acquire title in fee simple 
            to the Hunt House located in Waterloo, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 10, 1999

Mr. Moynihan (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

                             April 12, 2000

               Reported by Mr. Murkowski, with amendments
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act establishing Women's Rights National Historical Park 
to permit the Secretary of the Interior to acquire title in fee simple 
            to the Hunt House located in Waterloo, New York.

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

SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF HUNT HOUSE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1601(d) of Public Law <DELETED>97-607 
</DELETED>96-607 (94 Stat. 3547; 16 U.S.C. 410ll(d)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by inserting a period after ``park''; and
                    (B) by striking the remainder of the sentence; and
            (2) by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 1601(c)(8) of Public Law 
<DELETED>97-607 </DELETED>96-607 (94 Stat. 3547; 16 U.S.C. 410ll(c)(8)) 
is amended by striking ``Williams'' and inserting ``Main''.
                                                       Calendar No. 498

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1910

                          [Report No. 106-268]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Act establishing Women's Rights National Historical Park 
to permit the Secretary of the Interior to acquire title in fee simple 
            to the Hunt House located in Waterloo, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 12, 2000

                        Reported with amendments
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, John Mutch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, except for
the failure to timely file the Annual Report on Form 10-K, this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
October 18, 2005

| |  |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FIRST SOUTHWESTERN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

, Appellant,

v.

VAIDA MORALI, et al.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 919

[ April 21, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE10

- 26929

.

Joshua I. Gornitsky of Searles, Sheppard & Gornitsky, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Mauri Peyton of Peyton Bolin, PL, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d

1150 , 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that “[w]ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory ,” and “[ w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”).

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The K. & P. Lumber Co. v. Sledge,

(Decided April 13, 1911.)

Appeal from Warren Circuit Court.

Appeal — Amount in Controversy. — Where the defendant in an action admits owing a portion of tire amount sued for, the difference between the admitted liability and the amount plaintiff seeks to recover is the amount in controversy, and if less than two hundred dollars exclusive of interest and costs, no appeal lies.

SIMS & BODES for appellant.

W. B. GAINES for appellee.

*Opinion of*the CouRT by

William BogeRS Clay, Commissioned

Dismissing.

Appellee J. J. Sledge brought this action against ap pelíant The K. *&*P. Lumber Company, an Ohio corporation, to recover the sum of $382.27, which he alleged appellant had agreed to pay him for certain lumber which he sold and deliverd to it. Summons was served upon appellant “by delivering B. C. Simmons, Chief Agent of said company, found in Warren County, a copy of the within summons.” A motion was made to quash the summons and return, but was overruled by the court. Thereupon appellant, without entering its appearance; filed its plea to the jurisdiction of the court and an answer. Appellee demurred to the plea to the jurisdiction, and the demurrer was sustained. In its answer appellant admitted that it was indebted to appellee in the sum of $275.08, for which judgment was entered. Subsequently, *138' on the failure of appellant to plead farther after its plea to the jurisdiction was overruled, the court gave appellee judgment for the balance of his claim, amounting to $107.19. From this judgment and from the judgment for $275.08, this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount in controversy is only $107.19. When this motion was first considered, it was overruled. Upon a reconsideration of the question, we conclude that the motion should prevail.

Where the defendant in an action admits owing a portion of the amount sued for, the difference between the admitted liability and the amount plaintiff seeks to recover is the amount in controversy. As this amount is only $107.19, it follows that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
Order entered November 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00640-CR

QUINCY NATHANIEL JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-45744-Y

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due September 22, 2018. When it was not filed, we notified 

court reporter Vearneas Faggett by postcard dated September 26, 2018 and instructed her to file, 

by October 26, 2018, the reporter’s record or written verification appellant had not requested the 

reporter’s record. To date, we have not received the reporter’s record or written verification it 

has not been requested; nor have we had any communication from Ms. Faggett.

We ORDER the complete reporter’s record filed BY DECEMBER 10, 2018. We 

caution Ms. Faggett that the failure to do so will result in the Court taking whatever remedies it 

has available to ensure that the appeal proceeds in a timely fashion, which may include ordering 

that she not sit until the complete reporter’s record is filed.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Stephanie Fargo, 

Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Vearneas Faggett, court reporter, Criminal 

District Court No. 7; and to counsel for all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Commonwealth, By et al. v. Kosmos Portland Cement Company.

(Decided February 3, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, First Division).

Courts — Stare Decisis. — Tire judgment appealed .from is reversed upon the authority of Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., 153 Ky., 116; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky, 162 Ky., 149, and Commonwealth v. Inter-Southern Life Insurance Co., 162 Ky., 228, where the precise question here presented, was decided adversely to the decision of the trial court.

M. J. HOLT and A. SCOTT BULLITT for appellant.

HUMPHREY, MIDDLETON *&*HUMPHREY, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

CHIEF JUSTICE MlLLER

I? ever sing.

This proceeding was begun under Section 4260 of the Kentucky Statutes by the State Revenue Agent, in the Jefferson County Court, on February 4, 1911, for the purpose of assessing for taxation for the year 1911 certain personal property of the appellee, which appellant alleged was omitted from taxation for that year. The ease was tried in the county court on July 13, 1911, and submitted for judgment, which was entered on August, 21, 1911, assessing two items of small value. The Commonwealth prosecuted an appeal to the Jefferson Circuit Court by filing a transcript of the county court judgment in the circuit court clerk’s office on September 16, 1911. ’When the case was called for trial on September 28, 1912, in the circuit court, the defendant, who is the appellee here, moved the court to dismiss the action without prejudice at the cost of the revenue agent, under the provisions of the Act of 1912, which requires a diligent prosecution of acts of this character. (Acts *4921912, page 396.) This motion was sustained; and the action having been dismissed without prejudice at the cost of the revenue agent, he prosecutes this appeal.

The Act of 1912 was construed in Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., 153 Ky., 116; and, under the interpretation there given to the act, and by excluding the non-juridical days, it is conceded by counsel for appellee, and is unquestionably true, that the judgment of the circuit court in dismissing the action was erroneous. The decision in the Ewald Iron Company case was followed in Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 162 Ky., 149, and again in Commonwealth v. Inter-Southern Life Insurance Co., 162 Ky., 228. Those cases are on all fours with the case at bar, and, under the principle of *stare decisis,*require a reversal of the judgment of the circuit court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31255

Summary Calendar

 

CORNELL BOYKIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT CADDO

PARISH; WALRAVEN, Sergeant;

MARK GAY; B. BROWN, R.N.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-732

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cornell Boykin, Louisiana state prisoner #117301, appeals

from the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motions for

summary judgment and to dismiss in his civil rights proceeding. 

Boykin argues that defendant Gay subjected him to cruel and

unusual punishment and acted with deliberate indifference to his

medical needs by refusing to provide him with his medication on

one occasion and subjected him to an excessive use of force when

he allegedly threw Boykin to the floor and dragged him. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 
No. 96-31255

- 2 -

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

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 G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph
Williger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 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, 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:
June 30, 2005

| |                                  |                    
| | -------------------------------- | -------------------
| | By:                              | /s/ Joseph Williger
| |                                 
| | Name: Joseph Williger           
| | Title: Chief Executive
  Officer
| | (Principal Executive
  Officer) 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. and will be retained by G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

---
<PAGE>
                                 EXHIBIT 21.1
                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


THE MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES, INC.

        Major Acquisition Corp.

                Major Automotive Group, Inc.
                        Major Chevrolet, Inc.
                        Major Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, Inc.
                        Major Dodge, Inc.
                        Major Subaru, Inc.
                        Major Kia, Inc.

        Major Automotive of New Jersey, Inc.

                Compass Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
                Compass Dodge, Inc.

        Major Orange Properties, LLC

        Major Automotive Realty Corp.

        Hempstead Mazda, Inc.

        Major Nissan, Inc.

        Major Daewoo, Inc.

        Mid-Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.

        Major Fleet & Leasing Corp.
S. 1836

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project

in the State of Alabama.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AND REINSTATEMENT OF

LICENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

project numbered 7115, the Commission shall, at the request of

the licensee for the project, in accordance with the good faith,

due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and

the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend for 3

consecutive 2-year periods, the time period during which the

licensee is required to commence construction of the project.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect on the

expiration of the period required for commencement of construction

of the project described in subsection (a).

(c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the license for

the project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the

date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the

license effective as of the date of its expiration and extend the

time required for commencement of construction of the projects
S. 1836—2

for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods, the first of which

shall commence on the date of expiration of the license.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT
23.1

INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS CONSENT

Board
of Directors
Global Med Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiary:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No.
333-28155, No. 333-39193, No. 333-45031, No. 333-69851, No. 333-60672, and No.
333-60674) on Form S-8 of GlobalMed Technologies, Inc. and subsidiary, of our
report dated March 10, 2003, except for Note 11 as to which is dated April 7,
2003, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Med Technologies,
Inc.and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/
Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PCEhrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman
PC

Denver,
ColoradoApril 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This summary contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Hooper Holmes, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2000 and the related consolidated statements of income and cash
flows for the period ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      78,325,113
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,151,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                   978,236
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           114,506,530
<PP&E>                                      27,294,293
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,545,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             209,728,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,933,903
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,696,779
<OTHER-SE>                                 190,243,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               209,728,071
<SALES>                                    214,624,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           214,624,137
<CGS>                                      153,532,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              153,532,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            34,491,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,221,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             28,790,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,341,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         16,449,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                16,449,326
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-23919 and 333-68533) and the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-65747) of our report, dated September 28, 2005 related to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Ilog S.A., included in its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





October 4, 2005

Paris-La Défense, France



Ernst & Young Audit



Represented by Denis Thibon