alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jamie Jermaine BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2278

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Christina PAYLAN, M. D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Timothy J. FITZGERALD, Esq., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2225 CASE NO.: 2D17-2461

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 04, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Terry TERRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2292

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF CHEMTRAK
INCORPORATED FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANDIS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,672,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,489,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  457,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    382,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375,000
<PP&E>                                       2,894,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,335,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,267,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,389,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,335,000
<SALES>                                        583,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,000
<CGS>                                          920,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  920,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,511,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,868,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,868,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,868,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
#### Theodore LUCIO, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEVY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al. Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-3403

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed November 30, 2016

Kevin J. Boissoneault, Jonathan M. Ash-ton, Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault *&*Schaf-fer, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Stuart J. Goldberg, Lynn Vuketich Luther, Eastman *&*Smith, Toledo, OH, for Defendants-Appellees Levy Environmental Services Company, Butler Mill Service Company, Fulton Mill Service Company

David J. Simko, Shindler, Neff, Holmes, Schlageter & Mohler, Toledo, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

BEFORE: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity employee-injury case, plaintiff Theodore Lucio appeals the grant of summary judgment for defendant Levy Environmental Services Company and its affiliated entities. Lucio fell from a slag-mill tower owned by Levy and suffered serious and permanent injuries. He received Ohio workers’ compensation bene*890fits, but also brought suit against Levy-under Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01, which allows an employee to recover outside the workers’ compensation system for an employer’s intentional tort. The district court excluded the opinion of Lucio’s expert in part, and granted summary judgment for lack of evidence of intent to injure on the part of Levy. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the facts and governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplica-tive, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. *Lucio v. Levy Environmental Services Co.,*173 F.Supp.3d 558 (N.D. Ohio 2016).
George L. MOSBY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-1799

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# Iris Oifigiúil C NaN/14 M

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | Eagrán Speisialta (
  1
  ) |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 5714 Meitheamh 2014 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

Eagrán Speisialta (
  1
  )

1

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

5714 Meitheamh 2014

---

| | Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Fógairtí |
| | NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN |
| | Oifig Eorpach um Roghnú Foirne (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182 A/01 | Fógra Cealúcháin | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

V   Fógairtí

NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN

Oifig Eorpach um Roghnú Foirne (EPSO)

2014/C 182 A/01

Fógra Cealúcháin

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182 A/02 | Athbhreithniú ar Irisí Oifigiúla C A Comórtas | 2 |

2014/C 182 A/02

Athbhreithniú ar Irisí Oifigiúla C A Comórtas

2

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Faoin tagairt C 182 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. |

---

(1)   Faoin tagairt C 182 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh.

1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

V Fógairtí

NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN

Oifig Eorpach um Roghnú Foirne (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

---

FÓGRA CEALÚCHÁIN

(2014/C 182 A/01)

Maidir leis na comórtais oscailte:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 – profléitheoirí (AST 3) Gréigise (EL)

  agus |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 – profléitheoirí (AST 3) Gréigise (EL)

agus

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 – profléitheoirí (AST 3) Portaingéilise (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 – profléitheoirí (AST 3) Portaingéilise (PT),

ar foilsíodh na fógraí ina leith in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
   (1), tá siad curtha ar ceal.

---

(1)  IO C 131 A an 8.5.2013, lch. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

2

---

ATHBHREITHNIÚ AR IRISÍ OIFIGIÚLA C A COMÓRTAS

(2014/C 182 A/02)

Anseo thíos gheobhaidh tú liosta de na heagráin C A a foilsíodh le linn na bliana reatha.

Mura gcuirtear a mhalairt in iúl, foilsítear leagan den IO i ngach teanga.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**HORWATH ORENSTEIN LLP**

CharteredAccountants 

A MEMBER OF HORWATH INTERNATIONAL 

 

595 Bay Street, Suite 300 

Toronto, Canada

M5G 2C2 

 

(416) 596 1711 

(416) 596 7894 Fax 

www.hto.com 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS 

 

We consent to the inclusion of ouraudit of the consolidated audited financial statements of Yak Communications Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004 and 2003 as part of this Form 10-K/A. 

 

/s/ Horwath Orenstein LLP 

 

Horwath Orenstein LLP 

Chartered Accountants 

Toronto, Ontario 

 

May 31, 2005
Lionel MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00068-CV

1ST RESOURCE GROUP, INC., 

GARY FEWELL, DOUGLAS

MCKINNON, DANIEL STREETS, 

AND RESOURCE VENTURE

PARTNERS, LLC

APPELLANTS

V.

UMED HOLDINGS, INC. APPELLEES

------------

FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered appellants' “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss.” It is the 

court=s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellants, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: May 17, 2012
#### Maximino PEREZ-TORRES, aka Maximino Peres Torres, aka Maximino Perez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72418

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Reyna • Tanner, Attorney, Manulkin, Tanner, *&*Associates, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maximino Perez-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 682 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez-Torres’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion over nine years after his final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Avagyan,*646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

The BIA did not err in concluding that a motion to reopen a 2014 immigration judge *549decision from separate proceedings was not properly before it. *Hernandez v. Holder,*738 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing the BIA’s non-jurisdictional place-of-filing rule).

We do not consider the extra-record documentation that Perez-Torres submitted with his opening brief because it was not part of the administrative record. *See*8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(judicial review is limited to the administrative record); *Dent v. Holder,*627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review for out-of-record evidence).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Perez-Torres’s remaining contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto MENDOZA, a/k/a Monkey, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6352

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Roberto Mendoza, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R.' Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Mendoza seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.G. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the.denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §• 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mendoza has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Ronald ELLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., of Brownstone, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                       8,849,000
<SECURITIES>                                10,032,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,728,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,761,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,640,000
<PP&E>                                      14,153,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,993,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,072,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,869,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,407,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,072,000
<SALES>                                     31,673,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,673,000
<CGS>                                       22,991,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,408,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               249,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,616,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,020,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,596,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,596,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oswaldo ZUNIGA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Oswaldo Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30028

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez, Pro Se

*603Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part Zuniga-Sanchez’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court reduced Zuniga-San-chez’s sentence to 120 months, which reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Zuniga-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to a further reduction. We review de novo a district court’s refusal to depart below the mandatory minimum. *See United States v. Sykes,*658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the distinct court correctly concluded that it could not reduce Zuniga-Sanchez’s sentence any further than it did. *See Sykes,*658 F.3d at 1148.

Zuniga-Sanchez’s challenge to the district court’s denial of safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) is not cognizable in this proceeding. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (only aspects of the sentence affected by the amendment may be raised in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Paul LANDERS, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. LASALLE BANK, N. A., as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1267

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 18, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The parties' joint stipulation for dismissal filed on October 17, 2017, is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal and is accepted. This appeal is dismissed.
David Amma YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1929

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Davis *v.*Watson.

Opinion delivered October 17, 1927.

■LE’STEÉSíHtépitÁt pif s.tí'écrÁLBSTATümlóActs í923;}Np-, “130,'¡which'is v'o.-sSpec-i^lí^Qt app Jy jn¡g-jto '\ppje Bivei?¿Leyfif Distinct in,certa.in..coupj- ,,, ties,. ^Zct.repealed -by ^.ete ,1927/ p. 38,8^ wW^b4?,a ge^ral, covering thp same'subject.' ’.‘77 .“•

~IS~p~p~a1. ~ ~hauce~y. i~Zk~iittj ~QUthO]YT1 Di&~ici;; )AI ~11o~i;~ r~ver~ed:

~j E~

jsOn;if~r Ross appe~I1e~e~

Ross M�~l~s;~f appe~I1e~e~

.!-iíl!0TOjiPtoBfrs>//>Ji,»¡

íA.ppeliaut¡ ie <a ilkúdoTOuerrjáud á taxpayeriú 'the-¡White Riveii :L"eyÍ3eiDi'stLict'of<’Wo.odi1uf4 Píamenand Méíiroe!.counties; He■iiistiiated'lttós buit in théjcliancéry! couiít 'of -'Woodruff Ooxintyv iaiíthebSoiithh ern District, to enjoin the directors ioBsaidfdistildhff'ofa Üsstfing..iai4i.>,lMnldiú,|' iqt>. refuhding'Ponds- under«act No. ¡IB®! ofi'íhéí G'enejjal'iAssfeinDMyi-iof' ¡1923;; y?hichr/a,llo,w'Ml the hoárdilof''director's" ofi-.s-afid'1 district. tdífre-fimxiíifñeMhoimícfe yiithoififti.-any; firestfictiiohsoiwhatfeyet,-; alégúngu thafensaM aotohadllMeuik’epeatechihy'.'acf INoíí‘126, !oifii;the,iG;ehe]:al *1167Assembly of 1927,, which allowed the districts in the State to refund their respective indebtednesses under certain restrictions, .provided fifty-one per cent, of the landowners in the particular distinct should evidence a desire to do so by petition.

A demurrer was sustained to the complaint and a consequent judgment rendered, dismissing same, from which an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.

• The only question presented by the appeal is whether act No. 126 of 1927 repeals Act No. 130 of 1923. Act No. 130 of 1923 is a special act and act No. 126. of 1927 is a general act. Both relate to the same subject, the earlier act applying to White River Levee District of Woodruff, Prairie and Monroe counties and the later act purporting to apply to all districts in the State. By reference to the later act it will be observed that it is exclusive in the sense that it covers the general subject-matter to which it relates, and, under the rule announced by this court in the case of *Hampton*v. *Hickey,*88 Ark. 324, 114 S. W. 707, necessarily repeals the earlier act by implication, even if act No. 130 of 1923 is a special statute.

On account of the error indicated the decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Smith dissents.
Ralph WHEELER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. In re: the ESTATE OF Queenie Hilda WHEELER, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1553

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to comply with this court's April 24, 2018, order to show cause.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.