alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Derek NOTTAGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-751

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Wendall KABUTAN; Wanda Nalani Kabutan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, a DuPont Business and Iowa Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16838

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Wendall Kabutan, Pro Se

Wanda Nalani Kabutan, Pro Se

Adam Friedenberg, Clement Leo Glynn, Esquire, Attorney, James M. Hanlon, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lauren E. Wood, Esquire, Attorney, Glynn *&*Finley, LLP, One Walnut Creek Center, Walnut Creek, *264CA, Michael Purpura, Esquire, Attorney, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wendall and Wanda Kabutan appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in this consolidated diversity action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Harvest v. Castro,*531 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kabutans’ Rule 60(b) motion because the Kabutans failed to demonstrate any groúnds for relief. *See id.*at 745-49 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).

In their opening brief, the Kabutans fail to challenge the district court’s dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, and therefore they waived any such challenge. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”).

The Kabutans’ request that certain exhibits filed in the district court be unsealed, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
May 4, 2015

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

FAA Headquarters, Building 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11253 to Regulatory Docket No FAA-2014-0817

for Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management (DFAM) for additional aircraft.

Attention: FAA UAS Integration Office

DFAM respectfully requests the addition of the following aircraft to our Exemption No. 

11253 and COA FAA-2014-0817-333E:

Additional Aircraft Requested:

• DJI Phantom 3

The DJI Phantom 3 is the latest release of the Phantom Aircraft family. It has enhanced 

functionality and precision, from our already approved Phantom 2 in our existing 

Exemption. Included are the technical specifications & user manual.

DFAM’s existing safety standards and procedures as outlined in our Flight Operation & 

Procedures Manual (FOPM) will continue for the additional Aircraft. We will follow the 

recommended Maintenance and Operations Parameters set forth by each of these 

respective UAV Manufactures.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e-mail address

provided above should you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Simon Nielsen

CEO, Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc.

Simon Nielsen

CEO

Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc.

606 Venice Blvd, Suite E

Venice, CA 90291

(213) 379-0629

Simon.Nielsen@drone-fleet.com

www.drone-fleet.com
Robert A. WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-117

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-04-264-CV

IN RE CARLOS CISNEROS	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	After considering the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, and oral argument, the court is of the opinion that the petition for writ  of mandamus should be DENIED. 

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B: WALKER, HOLMAN, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 15, 2004
STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny ROBERTSON

NO. 2018-KK-0592

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
Garry Earl FINKEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3057

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
October 11, 1996

Catalina Marketing Corporation
11300 9/th/ Street North
St. Petersburg, Florida  33716


Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated by reference
in its Registration Statement File Nos.  33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-
07525, and 333-13335 its Form 10-Q for the three month and six month periods
ended September 30, 1996, which includes our report dated October 11, 1996,
covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant
to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



By /s/ William J. Meurer
  ----------------------
  William J. Meurer
SOKHEANG IM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3070

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Robert Daniel WALTERS v. Michelle Deakle WALTERS

2160279

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews

Document

Number: 

# 120 ) ll-E-8 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07AM

Sheet 120of 264 i i

i

•SU M BYWINOIN

t P. 2

; 5-23-9 7 ;11=58A

M ; RYNONE - 19199410234; #2 / 2 VJVV V WV« I A-94-5 2

Fron t Date : Contact : Company : ContactRepor t

Melanie Proctor

, Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) Octobe r 30,199 6 Mr . Jame s Manning , Plan tF^ginrer Rynon e Manu&crurin

g Corporatio

n Telephon e Number : (717 ) 888-527 2 Fa x Number : (717 ) 888-117 5 Contac tSummary : Tft_l M(H£& CoUSt'STs. OF./h

3frgR£.LW9+

JMi.Maimmgwascoata^togal^admuonalinfoimati M @e.Wrro mixers ma twere reporte

d i n a/99 3 industr

y survey : Mr

. Mannin g explaine d tha tRynon e ha s 4 SLu^ZC completel y enclose d Reipecimfifin g machines . Al l material s (resin , filler, an

d catalyst) ar

e «* " ep> harf-pipedim o the mixer/Th e barre l o f th e miwiwl^approxmiatcl y 4 quart s o f resm mat ^ 1P&&& ya^WBttn g n rnmplrfrrl

, th r mol d i s Move d m & w th a uuw au J Omua u mau k ia^spease d /* » *B ttou^n^aeetlHl&Aajaold r Ther e ar e n o vent s i n th e miwat m the syste

m U completel y MM* closed,excep tfor meirclease o f displace d ai r durin g rt w inateria

l loading . Tn

c displace d ai r i s fi^/it f released throug

h theftuee ttha

tallows th e mixer to be emptied . #/_£ as Whe n asked abou

tth e cos to f a Respect s mixer . Mr

. Marmin g pointe d ou ttha tth e pric e 77«
_ ror a ne w Respect s mixer range s from $30,00 0 to $90,000 . &9fifi£L . INFORMATION I S ACCURAT EP. 3 SEN T BY:RYNON E ; 5-23-9 7 ;11:58A M ; RYNONE - 19199410234; # 1 / 2 

# ¥N(DM 1 MANUFACTURIN

G CORP . RYNON E FA X COVE R SHEE T FAX : 717-888-117 5 DATE : 

# s /*? / 17

. FROM : J

MALlJU/^
COMPANY : COMPAN Y FAX : ?/« 7 VU-Ol3*f REMARKS : 

## 7 ^ 5 7y/>« t O A Mtx&£*



## (*, 4 ** CptsT'As U

0O*> ' MlX&&~- .

"INCLUDIN

G COVE R SHEE T P.O . BO X 128 . N. THOMA

S AVE. . SAYRE , P A 1884 0 • (717)888-527 2 

## *2

_
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

Letter of Consent

To Digex, Inc.,

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
listed below and related Prospectuses of Digex Incorporated of our report dated
March 15, 2002, with respect to the financial statements of Digex Sweden AB (not
separately presented therein) included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Digex Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

o    (Form S-8 no. 333-84025) pertaining to the registration of 9,000,000 shares
     of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Digex Incorporated Long
     Term Incentive Plan.
o    (Form S-8 no. 333-34506) pertaining to the registration of 650,000 shares
     of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Intermedia Communications
     Inc. 401 (k) plan
o    (Form S-8 no. 333-39098) pertaining to the registration of 6,000,000 shares
     of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Digex Incorporated Long
     Term Incentive Plan.
o    (Form S-8 no. 333-40240) pertaining to the Digex Incorporated 401(k) Plan.


Stockholm, Sweden
March 28, 2003

Ernst & Young AB

/s/ Bjorn Fernstrom
Jake BIAS v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00682-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: April 3, 2018 Closed: June 14, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
PHUONG LE and Phi Tang, Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2447

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-18-00819-CV

Style: Cynthia Johnson v. 

v. Severino Family, LLC

Date motion filed*: December 17, 2018

Type of motion: Motion to Dismiss

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________ 

We strike appellant’s Motion to Dismiss because said motion is deficient for failing to comply with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). The Court will consider a Motion to 

Dismiss that complies with the certificate of service requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See id. 

 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: __January 15, 2019_____
#### Daniel Gabino MARTINEZ; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-17298

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Daniel Gabino Martinez, Pro Se

Ramona Hage Morrison, Pro Se

Dalton Warren Wilson, Pro Se

Gregory William Addington, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAYY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment in their action alleging unreasonable delay in the processing of their grazing application by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). We dismiss.

*934Plaintiffs brought their complaint under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), which provides the district court with authority to compel agency action when that action is unreasonably delayed. During the pendency of this case, the BLM acted on plaintiffs’ application by sending plaintiffs a letter on March 14, 2014, acknowledging receipt of their application and pointing out several deficiencies in the application. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request to compel agency action on their application is moot, and we dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


Catalina Marketing Corporation
200 Carillon Parkway
St. Petersburg, Florida  33716

August 10, 2001

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated by reference
in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525, 333-
13335 and 333-86905, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001, which
includes our report dated July 18, 2001, covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


Arthur Andersen LLP
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and Vincent Ortnell Minott, Appellants, v. Gail Johnson DAYES, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-2418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Alvarez, Winthrop, Thompson & Storey, P.A., and P. Raul Alvarez, Jr., and Brian D. Stokes (Orlando), for appellants.

Falk, Waas, Hernandez, Cortina, Solomon & Bonner, P.A., and Glenn P. Falk and Richard A. Warren, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Paul K. SAFFELL, Husband, Appellant, v. Elizabeth D. SAFFELL, Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D18-21

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

Lester Makofka, Paola Parra Harris, and Mercedes Blason-Aguilar of Parra Harris Law, PLLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Heather B. Quick and Autumn Warner of the Quick Law Group, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M~Wave, Inc.
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, I, Jeff Figlewicz, Acting
Chief Financial Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 (1) such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.
 
 
 Dated:  August
      13, 2008
              
              /s/ Jeff FiglewiczJeff
      FiglewiczActing
      Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Joel HERNANDEZ-BANEGA, a/k/a Jimmy Cruz, a/k/a Jimmy Diaz, a/k/a Jimmy Diaz-Cruz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1061

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 28, 2017

Michael Conrad Johnson, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jimmy Joel Hernandez-Banega, Pro Se

Brian R. Leedy, Jacob R. Rasch-Chabot, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HOLMES, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Jimmy Joel Hernandez-Banega challenges his twenty-month term of imprisonment and three-year period of supervised release. He argues that the district court improperly applied a twelve-level sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B). '

On March 15, 2017, however, the government filed a notice advising our court *695that Mr. Hernandez-Banega was deported to Honduras following completion of the custodial portion of his sentence. Although Mr. Hernandez-Banega remains legally subject to a term of supervised release, his deportation means that he “has no obligation to report to a probation officer and is not under the supervision or control of the United States Probation Office.” *United States v. Vera-Flores,*496 F.3d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Hernandez-Banega’s removal has therefore “eliminated all practical consequences associated with serving a term of supervised release,” *id.*at 1181, and he has no “actual injury which this court can remedy,” *id.*at 1182. Similarly, Mr. Hernandez-Banega “has failed to demonstrate the presence of collateral consequences arising from any alleged errors the ... district court made during [his] sentencing proceeding.” *Id.*And the mere possibility of his reentry (along with the attendant revival of his obligation to comply with his supervised-release conditions) is too speculative to avoid dismissal for mootness. *See id.*at 1181-82.

Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez-Banega’s removal has rendered this appeal moot. *See id.*at 1182 (dismissing an appeal on mootness grounds following deportation); *see also United States v. Pena-Flores,*240 Fed.Appx. 281, 283 (10th Cir. 2007) (same), *cert. denied,*552 U.S. 1281, 128 S.Ct. 1702, 170 L.Ed.2d 515 (2008). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Jerome JONES and State of Florida, Respondents.

Case No. 5D18-2127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2018

Joyce L. Miller, of Department of Children & Families, Tavares, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent, State of Florida.

No Appearance for other Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

PER CURIAM.

Based on the State's proper concession of error, we grant the Department of Children and Families' petition for writ of certiorari and remand this case for further proceedings under section 916.17, Florida Statutes (2018). The lower court shall release Mr. Jones from custody of the department or conduct a hearing pursuant to section 916.17(2) within seven days from the date of this opinion.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Alba MUNOZ a/k/a Alba R. Munoz, Appellant, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Piedmont Park Homeowners Association, Inc., Bank of America, Pedro Portes and Suntrust Bank, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2379

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Justin POOD, Appellant, v. Kari POOD, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1202

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### IN RE: Christian Dior WOMACK, Petitioner

No. 17-1853

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 11, 2017

(Opinion filed: May 16, 2017)

Christian Dior Womack, Pro Se

Michelle Morgan, Esq., Melanie B. Wil-moth, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent

Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

Christian Dior Womack, a.k.a. Gucci Prada, pleaded guilty to charges of sex trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking by force. We affirmed his judgment of sentence. United States v. Womack, 646 Fed.Appx. 258, 259 (3d Cir. 2016). Also, we have denied several mandamus petitions that he has filed. See, e.g., In re Womack, 639 Fed.Appx. 70 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam). More than once, he has presented claims about what he perceives as improprieties in the counsel appointment process in his criminal case.

In September 2016, in the District Court criminal case, Womack presented a variation of his argument about the appointment of his counsel in a document that he entitled “petition for ancillary hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).” In March, he filed a motion for the District Court to issue a scheduling order relating to his “petition for an ancillary hearing ...” under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both applications remain pending.

Womack now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining of the District Court’s delay in ruling on his filings and requesting that we order the District Court to rule. We will deny the petition because mandamus relief is not warranted.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus when an undue delay in adjudication is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). However, as a general rule, “matters of docket control” are within the discretion of the District Court. In re *151Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).

Although there has been some delay in ruling on Womack’s new applications for relief in the District Court, under the circumstances of the case, we are not concerned by it. We do not believe that the delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. And we are sure that the District Court will rule on Womack’s applications soon. For these reasons, we will deny Womack’s mandamus petition.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5,7 does not constitute binding precedent.
Tawa MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-1065

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

Tawa Montgomery, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Robert Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Wolf and Ray, JJ., concur.