alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHIMERA SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Christopher A. PREVATT, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1336

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

Richard P. Spence, of The Spence Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Chimera Services (Chimera) appeals the trial court's final order dismissing its complaint with prejudice. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Chimera filed a complaint against Christopher Prevatt, a former employee. Prevatt, pro se, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. When the attorney of record for Chimera did not appear for the coordinated "short matters" hearing, the trial court granted Prevatt's motion, dismissing Chimera's complaint *with prejudice* . In part, the order states, "Plaintiff failed to appear. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Case is dismissed and closed." Chimera's attorney promptly filed a motion for rehearing and reconsideration, explaining his failure to appear. The motion was denied without elaboration, and this appeal timely followed.

As a general rule, "the standard of review of an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice is de novo." *Stubbs v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship*, 988 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Chimera argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint with prejudice. We agree.

If the court's order of dismissal is interpreted as a sanction for the attorney's failure to appear, it was error to dismiss without considering the appropriate factors. *See**Bennett ex rel. Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary's, Inc.*, 67 So.3d 422, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("Before a court may dismiss a cause as a sanction, it must first consider the six factors delineated in *Kozel v. Ostendorf*, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993), and set forth explicit findings of fact in the order that imposes the sanction of dismissal.").

Conversely, if the dismissal was based on substantive issues, it was error for the court to dismiss without providing Chimera an opportunity to amend the complaint. "Generally, a trial court must allow a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing its suit with prejudice unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause of action." *Albrecht v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund*, 481 So.2d 555, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing Chimera's complaint with prejudice and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, HARRIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Marcelo Augusto ALVES, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Appellees.

No. 1D17-4399

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

PRB GAS TRANSPORTATION, INC.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PRB Gas Transportation, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, Robert W. Wright, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PRB Gas Transportation, Inc., 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. | This Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 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 this Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PRB Gas Transportation, Inc. for the periods presented therein.

Date: May 23, 2005

|                                     |  | 
|------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Robert W. Wright                 |  | 
|                                     |  | 
|Robert W. Wright                     |  | 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)        |  |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, TEP 2B: SBIR Review Meeting, February 25, 2025, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W534, Rockville, Maryland, 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 26, 2024, FR Doc 2024-30711, 89 FR 105062.                

This notice is being amended to change the virtual meeting date from February 25, 2025, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. to March 13, 2025, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting times, format, and location will stay the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 10, 2025.

David W. Freeman,

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2025-00979 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Melissa TARDO, Danielle Tardo, Christopher Tardo and Joseph Tardo v. ALFORD SAFETY SERVICES, LLC and John Spears

NO. 2019-CC-0142

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Granted with a remand to the court of appeal for briefing and consideration of oral argument in accordance with La.C.C.P. art. 966(H).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1952

DANNY J. SEKOH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CRAIG WERNER, Division Manager; UNITED PARCEL

SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:04-cv-00893-BO)

Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny J. Sekoh, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Ballantine Molony, ALSTON

& BIRD, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Danny J. Sekoh appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his

civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Sekoh v. Werner, No. 5:04-cv-00893-BO

(E.D.N.C. July 19, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ALFRED CONHAGEN, INC. OF LOUISIANA v. RUHRPUMPEN, INC. and Waldemar S. Nelson and Company, Inc.

Alfred Conhagen, Inc. of Louisiana v. Ruhrpumpen, Inc. and Waldemar S. Nelson and Company, Inc.

NO. 2019-C-0126

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: October 26, 2006

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission public business meeting.

# DATES:

Friday, January 17, 2025, 10:00 a.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Meeting to take place by telephone and is open to the public via livestream on the Commission's YouTube page:                         *https://www.youtube.com/​user/​USCCR/​videos.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joe Kim: 202-376-7700;                         *publicaffairs@usccr.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the Government in Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting to discuss the Commission's business for the month of January. This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, January 17, 2025, is                     *https://www.streamtext.net/​player?​event=​USCCR.*                     Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.                

## Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Business Meeting

A. Discussion and Vote on FY 2025 Topic for USCCR Briefing Report on Mental Health Juvenile Justice

B. Discussion and Vote FY 2026 Topic for USCCR Statutory Enforcement Report on Antisemitism on College Campuses

C. Discussion and Vote on Report: The Federal Role in Enforcing Religious Freedoms in Prisons

D. Management and Operations
    - Staff Director's Report

III. Adjourn Meeting

Dated: January 10, 2025.

David Mussatt,

USCCR Chief Regional Programs Unit.

[FR Doc. 2025-00751 Filed 1-10-25; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
# C_2016462EN.01003701.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/37

---

Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO)

(Case T-739/16)

(2016/C 462/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp. j. (Koszalin, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Douglas Holding GmbH & Co.KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘COSIMO’ — Application for registration No 12 130 324

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2016 in Case R 2364/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the appeal brought by the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the appeal brought by the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the other party to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the other party to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 23-20084-rlj7 Doc 36 Filed 05/31/23 Entered 05/31/23 10:41:28 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case 23-20084-rlj7 Doc 36 Filed 05/31/23 Entered 05/31/23 10:41:28 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case 23-20084-rlj7 Doc 36 Filed 05/31/23 Entered 05/31/23 10:41:28 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
      32.1






Statement
      Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
      undersigned, Daniel Dror, Chairman of Hammonds Industries, Inc, a Nevada
      corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section
      906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of
      this
      report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
      2007.




The
      undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
      information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all
      respects, the financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results
      of
      its operations.






Date:  November
      7, 2007


Daniel
      Dror


Chairman/s/
      Daniel Dror
Lucia G. GRADINARIU, Appellant, v. Bill FURST, as Sarasota County Property Appraiser, Barbara Ford-Coates, as Sarasota County Tax Collector, Kathy Dent, as Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2830

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Bernard J. Jacob, Chief Executive Officer
of Pruco Life Insurance  Company of New Jersey (the  "Company"),  hereby certify
that the Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31,
2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information  contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2005

                                                /s/ Bernard J. Jacob
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Name:  Bernard J. Jacob
                                                    Title: Chief Executive
                                                           Officer

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.


                                       27
Kyndal EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1243

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 14 

Electing Robert M. Duncan, of the District of Columbia, as Secretary for 

the Majority of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. THUNE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Robert M. Duncan, of the District of Columbia, 

as Secretary for the Majority of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That Robert M. Duncan of the District of 

2 Columbia be, and he is hereby, elected Secretary for the 

3 Majority of the Senate. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2016343EN.01004501.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/45

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)

(Case T-421/16)

(2016/C 343/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Oma’ — Application No 14 169 478

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 91/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
# C_2016428EN.01001901.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/19

---

Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

(Case T-654/16)

(2016/C 428/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2136 of 11 July 2016, rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2136 of 11 July 2016, rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011;

| — | order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed Article 17(3) in conjunction with Article 11(3) and Article 11(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.

1

---
#### Commercial Credit Company, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. C. E. Miller, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision Filed June 14, 1927.

*Leroy V. Holsberry*and *L. V. Trueman,*for Plaintiff in Error; . .

*G. B. Mathis*and *W. F. Phillips,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the.Court upon the transcript of the record of *11the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and it appearing from the record in said cause that no judgment was entered therein and that the writ of error was taken to an order overruling a motion for 6, new trial this Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that the writ of error should be dismissed; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said writ of error be, and the same is hereby dismissed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

d0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

136797(60) 

GWANJUN KIM, 

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant-Appellant, 

and 

KEESOO KIM, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136797 

 COA: 277362 

Kent CC: 07-000187-CZ 

RONALD C. WERNETTE, JR., and 

BON GOU LEE, 

Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 27, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.