alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00194

- CV

IN RE BRAYDEN CROOK AND JONATHAN CROOK

Original Proceeding

DISSENTING OPINION

In this proceeding, the Relators want us to set aside a gag order rendered by the trial court judge. The verified petition for a writ of mandamus states that the order was rendered against the Relators after an ex parte hearing on a motion for the gag ord er without notice or an opportunity to be heard. After the petition for writ of mandamus was filed, the Real Party in Interest moved the trial court for a clarification of the gag order. Again without notice and an opportunity to be heard, the trial cour t purported to clarify the gag order. It should be beyond dispute that such an order and clarification, even if alleged to be an emergency, should not have been rendered and then modified asIn re Crook Page 2

a result of ex parte proceedings in which one side is deprived o f the opportunity to present evidence, respond to evidence, or cross examine the party seeking the order. The Real Party in Interest attempts to justify the merits of the gag order based on the allegations that secured, and the findings made to justify, t he gag order and its clarification. But what the Real Party in Interest does not defend, explain, or even respond to is why this order and clarification was sought or allowed to be obtained without notice and the opportunity to be heard at the hearing by the Relators. In fact, the Real Party in Interest asserts that in the 24 hours between the filing of the motion for clarification and the trial court signing the clarification order that “Relators failed to respond in any manner. No request for a special setting or request to file an opposition was made.” It was not the Relators’ motion. It was not their duty to request or obtain a setting on the Real Party in Interest’s motion or request leave to file a response. And until there was a setting, and

not ice thereof, the Relators had no realistic opportunity to even file a response, much less request a hearing on the Real Party in Interest’s motion. To deny the Relators the most fundamental of procedural due process rights, notice and an opportunity to be heard on a hotly contested motion for a gag order, is clearly an abuse of discretion for which there is no effective remedy by appeal. There is no need to even get to the merits of the gag order, because the procedure engaged in to obtain it cannot justi fy allowing the order to remain in effect. I would grant the petition for writ of mandamus and issue the writ of mandamus to compel the trial court toIn re Crook Page 3

immediately and without delay withdraw and set aside the gag order and purported clarification of the ga g order. Because the Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus, thus leaving the trial court’s gag order and clarification in place, I respectfully dissent.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed June 19, 2019 [O T06]
[ARTICLE] 5
[LEGEND]
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
form 10-KSB for period ended 9/30/97 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such form 10-KSB for period ended 9/30/97.
[/LEGEND]
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   12-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-1997
[CASH]                                         199,195
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  196,646
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                    210,608
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               609,419
[PP&E]                                       1,411,312
[DEPRECIATION]                                 994,732
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               1,189,064
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           54,712
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                        33,689
[OTHER-SE]                                   1,098,663
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 1,189,064
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                             1,772,900
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                1,231,475
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               491,819
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              14,063
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 37,818
[INCOME-TAX]                                     2,750
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             35,068
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    35,068
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                        0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
(No. 74-CC-145

#### Multigraphics Division, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 2, 1974.*

Multigraphics Division, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Edward L. S. Arkema, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*316Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 989

 977

 979

 938

 909

 943

 977

 977

 945

 953

 965

 958

 900

 877

 773

 702

 655

 575

 656

 671

 655

 635

 648

 643

 601

 586

 597

 534

 510

 533

 251

 254

 252

 244

 251

 241

 250

 258

 246

 256

 251

 240

 244

 247

 255

 275

 318

 301

 321

 326

 335

 322

 338

 339

 325

 332

 346

 345

 62

 350

 481

 487

 521

 489

 522

 516

 575

 607

 512

 505

 533

 423

 407

 443

 333

 473

 441

 410

 453

 466

 442

 435

 460

 431

 405

 414

 431

 409

 395

 430

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:May 8, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 313

 317

 338

 318

 339

 335

 371

 391

 332

 328

 345

 277

 268

 290

 222

 308

 289

 269

 296

 304

 289

 285

 300

 282

 266

 272

 282

 269

 260

 282

TOTAL 13,849

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth * Circuit, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2068EA

_____________ Charles Gregory, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 20, 1998

Filed: December 9, 1998

_____________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL, Circuit Judges. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Charles Gregory appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Gregory's application for supplemental security income. For rever sal, Gregory contends the Commissioner's decision is not supported by su bstantial evidence on the record as a whole because "[t]he ALJ relied o n vocational expert testimony that does not support his ultimate conclusion that there is a significant number

of jobs in the national economy that Gregory can perform despite-2-

hi s impairments." Having reviewed the administrative record, we conclude that Gregory's arguments lack merit. We find substantial evidence supports the decision of the Commissioner that Gregory is not disabled for social security purposes. Because an extende d discussion would serve no useful purpose in this fact-intensive case, w e affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
! 

"!
 



! 





	 


#$%&'()(*+ (,-.,/
01#
 

!.2/.,.('(34!
$5 )  

)

 



	 


4'&16%%-2.7' 

!.2/.,.('(34!
$ )

 



 )

MICHAEL P. COTTER, )

TRUSTEE )

8#2'',92.'2.23)':.1'# 

4'&(0'(;'!
# ) 



 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

	
	

'.14(3;%=!
(2%8$

"3".34(')(+)%22(+ 

$$#,/.,''2.,/2:.1'5#

'(3412''%2,'2&
##>

#8>;+(3;%?@1/)(63%@ 


Case 17-73442-FJS Doc 39 Filed 06/17/20 Entered 06/17/20 08:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
4.&@(11'2.&9'A%2'14'3%:21%,:,'>##%,14'@%1.%,%A(,;2:&1(1.%,()


&&%3.(1.%,(&2:&1''%A14'(9(,('2.'&!2:&1=B"%7(,1CA%22').'AA2%@14'3%-'91%2

&1(+6.142'&0'311%14'2'()02%0'21+)%3(1'-(1
4'&16%%-2.7'!.2/.,.('(34!


$=D2%0'21+D

0%,3%,&.-'2(1.%,%A14'"%1.%,%A(,;2:&1(1.%,()
&&%3.(1.%,(&2:&1''%A

14'(9(,('2.'&!2:&11%@%-.A+14'3%-'91%2&1(+E.1.&

14(114'3%-'91%2&1(+.@0%&'-9+

F
#
.&@%-.A.'-1%0'2@.114'

@%7(,11%',A%23'14').',%A.1&-''-%A12:&1(&.10'21(.,&1%14'2'()02%0'21+)%3(1'-(1


4'&16%%-2.7'!.2/.,.('(34!
$(,-.&@%2'0(21.3:)(2)+-'&32.9'-(&A%))%6&

 %1  
>  B!   	 
     !    


	C(&14'&(@'.&-:)+-'-.3(1'-0)(11'-(,-2'3%2-'-.,"(0%%;(1(/'5

#(@%,/14' (,-'3%2-&%A14'.1+%A!.2/.,.('(34!.2/.,.(

64.342').'A&4())'*1',-1%14'0:234(&'2(114'A%2'3)%&:2'&()'1%())%614'0:234(&'21%1(;'

&:34%14'2(31.%,:,-'2&1(1')(6(&@(+9','3'&&(2+1%%91(.,0%&&'&&.%,%A14'02%0'21+

(1%2A%);!.2/.,.(14.&<<<<-(+%A:,'##



,.1'-1(1'&(,;2:013+:-/'




	



G&G'.14(3;%<<

'.14(3;%

!.2/.,.((2%8$

$$#,/.,''2.,/2

:.1'5#

'(3412''%2,'2&
##>

#8> 

;+(3;%?@1/)(63%@

	




Jun 16 2020

/s/ Frank J. Santoro

Jun 17 2020

Case 17-73442-FJS Doc 39 Filed 06/17/20 Entered 06/17/20 08:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3


G&G(22',
14'21(AA
11%2,'+A%22:&1''

".34(')%11'2

4(01'2
2:&1''

8#2'',92.'2.23)':.1'#

4'&(0'(;'!
#




	

4':,-'2&./,'-3'21.A.'&0:2&:(,11%:)'>#
=314(114'A%2'/%.,/2-'24(&

9'',&'27'-:0%,()),'3'&&(2+0(21.'&(,-14(1(3'21.A.3(1.%,%A@(.).,/.&9'.,/A.)'-

6.1414.&2-'2.,-.3(1.,/:0%,64%@14'A%2'/%.,/2-'26(&&'27'-(,--(1'(,-

@(,,'2%A&:34&'27.3'

G&G'.14(3;%


11%2,'+A%2"%7(,1

.))14'3)'2;0)'(&'&',-3%0.'&%A14.&2-'2.,')'312%,.3A%2@(11%())0(21.'&64%(2').&1'-

%,14'&+&1'@(,-1%

(,-(%:,/'21'04',&


#$%&'()(*+ (,-.,/
01#


!.2/.,.('(34!
$5

'22+1'04',&2


4'&16%%-2.7'

!.2/.,.('(34!
$



Case 17-73442-FJS Doc 39 Filed 06/17/20 Entered 06/17/20 08:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 519

 465

 413

 402

 467

 472

 429

 408

 402

 400

 405

 431

 448

 461

 459

 450

 458

 455

 453

 461

 463

 455

 451

 461

 459

 467

 450

 426

 423

 392

 375

 400

 368

 364

 375

 393

 410

 382

 360

 366

 367

 392

 397

 400

 401

 405

 415

 420

 433

 433

 429

 422

 413

 404

 403

 399

 374

 355

 361

 367

 354

 331

 431

 398

 383

 388

 422

 442

 409

 382

 382

 386

 397

 412

 411

 416

 425

 434

 440

 446

 441

 436

 432

 423

 420

 416

 411

 398

 387

 384

 386

 375

 351

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:June 2, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 282

 262

 253

 256

 277

 289

 269

 252

 252

 255

 261

 271

 270

 273

 279

 284

 288

 292

 289

 285

 283

 277

 276

 273

 270

 262

 255

 253

 255

 248

 233

TOTAL 12,664

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
# Official Journal C 280/17 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 280 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4717 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 280

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4717 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 280/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 280/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3502 — ACCOR/CLUB MEDITERRANEE) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2004/C 280/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3581 — T-MOBILE/POLSKA TELEFONIA CYFROWA) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2004/C 280/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3616 — AUCHAN/LA RINASCENTE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2004/C 280/5 | Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2004/C 280/6 | State aid — Belgium — Aid C76/2003 ex NN69/2003 — Reduction of a VAT debt owed by Umicore SA (formerly Union Minière SA) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2004/C 280/7 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3603 — UPS/MENLO) (
  1
  ) | 28 |
| 2004/C 280/8 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3618 — BP/HDPE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 29 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 280/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 280/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3502 — ACCOR/CLUB MEDITERRANEE) (
  1
  )

1

2

2004/C 280/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3581 — T-MOBILE/POLSKA TELEFONIA CYFROWA) (
  1
  )

1

2

2004/C 280/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3616 — AUCHAN/LA RINASCENTE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2004/C 280/5

Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  )

1

4

2004/C 280/6

State aid — Belgium — Aid C76/2003 ex NN69/2003 — Reduction of a VAT debt owed by Umicore SA (formerly Union Minière SA) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  )

1

10

2004/C 280/7

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3603 — UPS/MENLO) (
  1
  )

1

28

2004/C 280/8

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3618 — BP/HDPE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

29

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2004/C 280/9 | Corrigendum to the Commission interpretive communication on certain aspects of the provisions on televised advertising in the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive ( OJ C 102, 28.4.2004 ) | 30 |

Corrigenda

2004/C 280/9

Corrigendum to the Commission interpretive communication on certain aspects of the provisions on televised advertising in the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive ( OJ C 102, 28.4.2004 )

( OJ C 102, 28.4.2004 )

30

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### §5704. Advisory Committee

#### (a) Appointments

The Governor of Alaska may appoint an Advisory Committee of not less than eight, but not more than twelve, individuals who are knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the salmon fisheries on the Yukon River. At least 2 of the Advisory Committee members shall be Alaska Natives. Members of the Advisory Committee may attend all meetings of the United States section of the Panel, and shall be given the opportunity to examine and be heard on any matter under consideration by the United States section of the Panel.

#### (b) Compensation

The members of such Advisory Committee shall receive no compensation for their services.

#### (c) Term length

Advisory Committee members shall serve two-year terms. Any individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of any term shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.

#### (d) Reappointment

Advisory Committee members shall be eligible for reappointment.

(Pub. L. 104–43, title VII, §705, Nov. 3, 1995, 109 Stat. 394.)
#### Max Baron, Suing on Behalf of Himself and Other Stockholders of the Ball Electrical Illuminating Company, etc., Respondent, v. Ball Electrical Illuminating Company and Others, Appellants.

Order modified by striking from the complaint the allegations thereof marked “ Winth,” “ Tenth ” and ‘1 Eleventh ” as merely evidentiary and irrelevant; and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Wo opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 448

 420

 423

 420

 378

 358

 362

 372

 379

 359

 324

 319

 313

 334

 325

 307

 306

 303

 309

 315

 297

 252

 193

 181

 187

 217

 214

 187

 221

 211

 215

 294

 294

 283

 260

 258

 257

 290

 287

 269

 262

 252

 242

 238

 224

 202

 168

 225

 226

 228

 212

 179

 156

 139

 145

 162

 144

 130

 132

 137

 134

 119

 318

 322

 318

 303

 291

 284

 317

 320

 302

 294

 275

 265

 261

 263

 248

 241

 258

 255

 256

 261

 224

 199

 156

 158

 172

 174

 159

 150

 161

 160

 149

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:June 22, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 213

 215

 213

 203

 196

 192

 212

 214

 203

 198

 186

 180

 177

 179

 169

 165

 175

 174

 174

 177

 154

 139

 112

 114

 122

 124

 114

 109

 115

 115

 108

TOTAL 7,514

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
Editorial Note on Part 645
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 645 appear at 65 FR 70311, Nov. 22, 2000.

§ 645.203 Applicability. This subpart applies to: ( a ) New utility installations within the right-of-way of Federal-aid or direct Federal highway projects,
( b ) Existing utility facilities which are to be retained, relocated, or adjusted within the right-of-way of active projects under development or construction when Federal-aid or direct Federal highway funds are either being or have been used on the involved highway facility. When existing utility installations are to remain in place without adjustments on such projects the transportation department and utility are to enter into an appropriate agreement as discussed in § 645.213 of this part,
( c ) Existing utility facilities which are to be adjusted or relocated under the provisions of § 645.209(k), and
( d ) Private lines which may be permitted to cross the right-of-way of a Federal-aid or direct Federal highway project pursuant to State law and regulations and the provisions of this subpart. Longitudinal use of such right-of-way by private lines is to be handled under the provisions of 23 CFR 1.23(c).
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dental Patient Care America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brad Berrett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

 

/s/ Brad Berrett 

Chief Financial Officer

November 16, 2007
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1132/2006

of 25 July 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 25 July 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 614

 542

 534

 545

 539

 553

 564

 561

 566

 566

 575

 573

 569

 557

 547

 550

 549

 552

 544

 538

 543

 552

 585

 554

 684

 585

 636

 582

 660

 575

 613

 453

 450

 456

 493

 509

 506

 513

 518

 533

 536

 543

 530

 529

 530

 523

 501

 505

 509

 513

 504

 519

 519

 519

 516

 525

 512

 505

 509

 516

 515

 519

 505

 494

 494

 516

 527

 537

 543

 538

 548

 555

 556

 552

 548

 544

 535

 530

 524

 531

 531

 518

 532

 534

 541

 530

 561

 536

 561

 549

 580

 540

 553

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 4, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 328

 321

 321

 335

 342

 348

 352

 348

 355

 359

 360

 357

 355

 352

 347

 344

 340

 344

 344

 336

 345

 346

 350

 344

 363

 347

 363

 355

 374

 350

 358

TOTAL 16,643

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
THE GALLAGHER LAW GROUP, P.A.

,
Appellant,

v.

VIC RENOVATIONS

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1557

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 4, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. E. Douglas Spangler, Jr. , Judge

.
Date of Accident: August 12, 2012.

Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Rayo Moreno, Fort Lauderdale , for Appellant.

William E. Gregory, Miami , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Th e court having received the August 22, 2016, order of the Supreme Court

of Florida quashing this court’s opinion of September 25, 2015, and remanding the

matter for reconsideration upon application of Castellanos v. Next Door Co.

, 192

So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016)

, and finding that reversal is warranted in light of that opinion,2 the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims is REVERSED and this case is

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
### §3062. General arrest authority for violation of release conditions

A law enforcement officer, who is authorized to arrest for an offense committed in his presence, may arrest a person who is released pursuant to chapter 207 if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is violating, in his presence, a condition imposed on the person pursuant to section 3142(c)(1)(B)(iv), (v), (viii), (ix), or (xiii), or, if the violation involves a failure to remain in a specified institution as required, a condition imposed pursuant to section 3142(c)(1)(B)(x).

(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §204(d), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1986; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7052, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4401.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–690 substituted "section 3142(c)(1)(B)(iv), (v), (viii), (ix), or (xiii)" for "section 3142(c)(2)(D), (c)(2)(E), (c)(2)(H), (c)(2)(I), or (c)(2)(M)" and "section 3142(c)(1)(B)(x)" for "section 3142(c)(2)(J)".