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

Case No. 5D18-1912

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019

Clint Horvatt, Chipley, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Clint Horvatt appeals the denial of his motion for the return of property seized during his criminal prosecution. Horvatt contends that the trial court erred in finding that he untimely filed his motion. We affirm.

Section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2011), governs the disposition of unclaimed evidence or tangible personal property and provides:

> Title to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in the custody of the court or clerk of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently in the law enforcement agency **60 days** after the conclusion of the proceeding.

(emphasis added). This Court defines the "conclusion of the proceeding" as when "the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant's judgment and sentence." *Davis v. State*, 198 So.3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Thus, a trial court may deny a motion for return of seized property as untimely pursuant to section 705.105(1) where the defendant failed to file the motion within sixty days of the entry of the defendant's judgment and sentence or the issuance of the mandate in the direct appeal. *See* § 705.105(1) ; *Davis*, 198 So.3d at 1072.

Here, Horvatt failed to file his motion within the time limitation of section 705.105(1). This Court affirmed Horvatt's judgment and sentence on August 9, 2011, and issued the mandate in his direct appeal on August 31, 2011. *Horvatt v. State*, 84 So.3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Horvatt filed his motion for return of seized property on February 23, 2018. Thus, we agree with the trial court that Horvatt's motion, filed almost seven years after this Court's mandate, was untimely.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
# C_2018083EN.01000601.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-58/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(h) - Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ - Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon - Liquid waste - Excluded))

(2018/C 083/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes from the concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’, within the meaning of that provision, greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon in a liquid state.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Victor Roskey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust;

2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.

|                     |     |                                                                                  
|-------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:
April 19, 2007 | By: | /s/ Victor Roskey
Victor Roskey
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021431EN.01003501.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)

(Case T-493/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SFORA WEAR - Earlier EU figurative marks Sfera KIDS and Sfera - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 431/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Andrzej Koc (Kobyłka, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 (Case R 2030/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sfera Joven and Andrzej Koc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sfera Joven, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sfera Joven, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biotel Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities listed below, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                          |   | **Biotel Inc.** |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
| Date:  May 14, 2008 |   | By:        | /s/ B. Steven Springrose |
|                          |   |            | B. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officerand President (principal executive officer) |

 

|                          |   |      |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------|
| Date:  May 14, 2008 |   | By:  | /s/ Judy E. Naus |
|                          |   |      | Judy E. NausChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer) |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Biotel Inc. and will be retained by Biotel Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TERRY L. SMITH, SR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 3:93-CV-1509-D 

§

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, the April

11, 2007 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the

April 24, 2007 objections of plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and

conclusions of the court. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s March 29, 2007 request for reconsideration of the order entered by

this court on March 23, 2007 is granted. Plaintiff’s March 23, 2007 objections to the findings,

conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge are overruled. Plaintiff’s

June 26, 2006 motion to revisit, reverse, or relief and February 1, 2007 motions for reinstatement

and relief are denied.

SO ORDERED.

April 25, 2007.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:93-cv-01509-D Document 41 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 478
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 102 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1454
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 102 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1455
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 102 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1456
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 102 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1457
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 102 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1458
Exhibit 32.1

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 quarterly report of U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Paul B.
Gridley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of US Shipping General Partner
LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.

| |                                       | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Paul B. Gridley                  
| |                                       | 
| | Paul B. Gridley                      
| | Chairman and Chief
 Executive Officer
| | November 9, 2007                     

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping
Partners L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

46

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 238 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 238

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that 
 artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies can qualify 
  as a practitioner eligible to prescribe drugs if authorized by the 
  State involved and approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and 
              Drug Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2025

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that 
 artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies can qualify 
  as a practitioner eligible to prescribe drugs if authorized by the 
  State involved and approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and 
              Drug Administration, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Technology Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. PRESCRIPTION OF DRUGS BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR MACHINE 
              LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES.

    Section 503(b) of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
353(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(6) In this subsection, the term `practitioner licensed by law to 
administer such drug' includes artificial intelligence and machine 
learning technology that are--
            ``(A) authorized pursuant to a statute of the State 
        involved to prescribe the drug involved; and
            ``(B) approved, cleared, or authorized under section 
        510(k), 513, 515, or 564.''.
                                 <all>
```
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Luis Angel RODRIGUEZ and State of Florida, Respondents.

Case No. 5D18-3841

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

Joyce L. Miller, Assistant General Counsel, of Department of Children and Families, Tavares, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee, State of Florida.

No Appearance for Other Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Children and Families ("the Department") petitions this Court for certiorari review, challenging the trial court's order involuntarily committing Luis Angel Rodriguez to its care. We grant the petition.

Before Rodriguez could be brought to trial on multiple criminal offenses, a question arose as to his competency to proceed. The trial court properly ordered an evaluation pursuant to section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b). A psychologist evaluated Rodriguez and concluded that he was intellectually disabled and not competent to proceed to trial. While the evaluating psychologist recommended that Rodriguez participate in certain treatment, she specifically opined that Rodriguez was "not likely restorable to competency." After receiving the evaluating psychologist's report, the trial court rendered an order adjudicating Rodriguez incompetent to proceed to trial and committing him to the Department's care pursuant to section 916.13(1), Florida Statutes (2018).

The trial court erred in involuntarily committing Rodriguez under *1088section 916.13(1) because requirements for such a commitment include the existence of "a substantial probability that the mental illness causing the defendant's incompetence will respond to treatment **and** the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future." § 916.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added). Because the evaluating psychologist opined that Rodriguez was not likely restorable to competency, he could not be committed under section 916.13(1). *See**Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Gilliland* , 947 So.2d 1262, 1262-63 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing *Oren v. Judd* , 940 So.2d 1271, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ) (quashing order of continued commitment under section 916.13(1)(c) where uncontradicted testimony established little or no probability respondent would become competent in future).

We grant the Department's petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order of involuntary commitment below, and remand for further proceedings.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; and REMANDED.

COHEN, BERGER, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
|  | (a) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended      September 30, 2010 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and      Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (b) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ FRANK V. RIOLO                                     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Frank      V. Riolo                                    |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer of                        |
|   | American      Casino & Entertainment PropertiesLLC |

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

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

**asAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of optionsXpress Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), David S. Kalt, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and David A. Fisher, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ DAVID S. KALT |                    |
|-------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:             | David S. Kalt           |
| Title:            | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |                         |  |

 

 

Date: August 9, 2005

 
| /s/ DAVID A. FISHER |                    |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:               | David A. Fisher         |
| Title:              | Chief Financial Officer |
|                     |                         |  |

 

 

Date: August 9, 2005

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO Furnished 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 Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Susan Barnes, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2011 |  | /s/    Susan Barnes          
|                   |  | Susan Barnes                 
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                   |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Case 3:00-cv-01806-D Document 12 Filed 12/04/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25