alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAFARI ALEX CARLOS,

Appellant,

v.

YOLIE CARLOS,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2236

[August 18, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; James W. McCann, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562020DR001292AXXXHC.

Jafari Alex Carlos, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

The husband appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition 

for dissolution of marriage. We reverse the court’s dismissal and remand 

for further proceedings.

Fifty-five days after the husband filed his petition, the circuit court 

entered a sua sponte order requiring him to file documents showing 

service of process. The court required the documents to be filed by 

October 8, 2020—the 120th day after the husband filed his initial 

pleading. Because nothing appeared on the docket on October 12, 2020, 

the court dismissed the petition. The court’s “order of dismissal” stated 

that the petition was dismissed “[d]ue to the parties’ failure to comply 

with a previous court order.”

We appreciate the difficult task of managing a crowded docket, but 

the rules of procedure do not yield to that task. Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.070(j) offers a remedy if service of process is not effectuated 

within 120 days after filing the initial pleading: “[T]he court, on its own 

initiative after notice or on motion, shall direct that service be effected 

within a specified time or shall dismiss the action without prejudice or 
2

drop that defendant as a party . . . .” Id. But even the authorization to 

dismiss without prejudice has limits because “if the plaintiff shows good 

cause or excusable neglect for the failure, the court shall extend the time 

for service for an appropriate period.” Id.

Here, the court issued the order fifty-five days after the initial pleading

was filed. On day 122, the court dismissed the case without allowing the 

husband an opportunity to show “good cause or excusable neglect.”

The rule requires more. See Connelly v. Crown Cruise Line, Inc. S.A., 

636 So. 2d 886, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We reverse and remand for 

further proceedings to allow the husband an opportunity to show “good 

cause or excusable neglect” for the failure to serve the respondent within 

the time allowed.

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, J., and FAHNESTOCK, FABIENNE E., Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Patrick JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7056.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
International Fuel Technology, Inc. 10-K






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 conjunction with the annual report on Form 10-K of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),




I, Jonathan R. Burst, the Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  March 31, 2011

By:
/s/ Jonathan R. BurstJonathan R. BurstChief Executive Officer
Cloretha WHITE PEAK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6933.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Jeffrey Volk, do hereby consent to the filing of the
resources information in the Annual Information Form (the AIF) of AuRico Gold
Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2014 and the use of my name
in the Annual Information Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for
the year ended December 31, 2014, filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, and any amendments thereto, and the incorporation by
reference into the Form F-3 (File No. 333-189227) of the Company and any
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Company filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, of the Companys AIF and Annual Report on
Form 40-F.

|Dated: February 19, 2015 | By: /s/ Jeffrey
      Volk           
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------
|                         | Jeffrey
      Volk                   
|                         | AuRico
      Gold Inc.               
|                         | Director Reserves
      and Resources

---
International Fuel Technology, Inc. 10-K








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 conjunction with the annual report on Form 10-K of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),




I, Stuart D. Beath, the 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  March 31, 2011

By:
/s/ Stuart D. BeathStuart D. BeathChief Financial Officer
# L_2012341EN.01003101.xml

| 13.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 341/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/31

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 177/2012

of 28 September 2012

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 135/2012 of 13 July 2012 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 135/2012 of 13 July 2012 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 37di (Commission Decision 2011/291/EU) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘37dj. | 32011 R 0454: Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem “telematics applications for passenger services” of the trans-European rail system (OJ L 123, 12.5.2011, p. 11).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘37dj.

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 29 September 2012, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 28 September 2012.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Atle LEIKVOLL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 309, 8.11.2012, p. 16.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 123, 12.5.2011, p. 11.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Brandon Mark Mangarero RANGAMAR, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-5721.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# L_2012076EN.01003301.xml

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 76/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/33

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 149/2011

of 2 December 2011

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 120/2011 of 21 October 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 120/2011 of 21 October 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2010/3572/EU of 30 June 2010 amending Commission Decision 2010/774/EU of 13 April 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information as referred to in point (a) of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2010/3572/EU of 30 June 2010 amending Commission Decision 2010/774/EU of 13 April 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information as referred to in point (a) of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 66hf (Commission Decision C(2010) 774 final) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32010 D 3572: Commission Decision 2010/3572/EU of 30 June 2010 amending Commission Decision 2010/774/EU of 13 April 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information as referred to in point (a) of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32010 D 3572: Commission Decision 2010/3572/EU of 30 June 2010 amending Commission Decision 2010/774/EU of 13 April 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information as referred to in point (a) of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 3 December 2011, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 56/2011 of 20 May 2011 (2), whichever is the later.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 December 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 341, 22.12.2011, p. 85.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2011, p. 38.

2

---
Jorge RIOS-DIAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6772.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# L_2014342EN.01004501.xml

| 27.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 342/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/45

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 137/2014

of 27 June 2014

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2013 of 21 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2013 of 21 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

1

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 1je (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32013 R 1253: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2013 of 21 October 2013 (OJ L 331, 10.12.2013, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32013 R 1253: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2013 of 21 October 2013 (OJ L 331, 10.12.2013, p. 1).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EU) No 1253/2013 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Official Journal of the European Union

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 28 June 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (2).

2

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  OJ L 331, 10.12.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

2

---
Richard D. SIBERT v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

No. 17-566 (R46-011/OT 2017).

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 5, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Enamidem Celestine OKON, petitioner, v. Becky DOOLEY, Warden.

No. 16-8062.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
GEORGE FOREMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of George Foreman Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Anderson, 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:

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

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

/s/ Jeremy Anderson				
Jeremy Anderson
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2006
#### E. P. Watkins *v.*The State.

Possession of Stolen Property.—It was error to charge the jury that a person found in possession of property recently stolen is held accountable for the theft unless he explains his possession of the property. The true rule is that such possession is merely a fact or circumstance for the consideration of the jury, in connection with the other evidence.

Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. George H. Noonan.

The indictment was for the theft of a coat and vest worth $22. The jury found the accused guilty, and assessed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

No brief for the appellant.

*A. J. Peeler,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Winkler, J.

The judgment rendered in this case at the last term of this court at this place was, on motion of the attorney general, set aside, a rehearing granted, and the cause continued. The judgment of conviction had must now be reversed and the cause remanded, because of a material error in the charge of the court, when taken in connection with all the evidence. This error is found in the 3d paragraph of the charge, and is as follows :

> “ 3d. When a person is found in possession of property recently stolen, such person is held accountable for the theft unless he can explain how he came to have the stolen prop*74erty in Ms possession. In other words, it is made obligatory upon the person having the stolen property in possession to rebut the presumption of guilt thus ensuing, by proof.”

The true rule is correctly quoted in the opinion of the supreme court of Texas, delivered by Mr. Justice Gould, in *McCoy*v. *The State,*44 Texas, at page 618, as follows:

> “ The possession of property recently stolen is merely a. fact or circumstance to be considered by the jury, in connection with all the other evidence submitted to them, in determining the guilt or innocence of the possessor’ citing *Perry*v. *The State,*41 Texas, 484, and authorities there cited; *Calvin Thompson*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 268; *Yates*v. *The State,*37 Texas, 202; 2 Bishop’s Cr. Proc.

This rule has been followed by this court in the following cases: *Hannah*v. *The State,*1 Texas Ct. of App. 578, and *Massey*v. *The State,*1 Texas Ct. of App. 563.

In this case this charge must necessarily have influenced the jury to the prejudice of the accused; and, on this account, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
# L_2014058EN.01002801.xml

| 27.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 174/2013

of 8 October 2013

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 1179/2012 of 10 December 2012 establishing criteria determining when glass cullet ceases to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1179/2012 of 10 December 2012 establishing criteria determining when glass cullet ceases to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is inserted after point 32ffa (Council Regulation (EU) No 333/2011) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘32ffb. | 32012 R 1179: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1179/2012 of 10 December 2012 establishing criteria determining when glass cullet ceases to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 337, 11.12.2012, p. 31).
  The provisions of the Regulation shall, for the purposes of this Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:
  In Article 2(4), the words “or the territory of the EFTA States” shall be inserted after the words “the customs territory of the Union”.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘32ffb.

32012 R 1179: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1179/2012 of 10 December 2012 establishing criteria determining when glass cullet ceases to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 337, 11.12.2012, p. 31).

The provisions of the Regulation shall, for the purposes of this Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:

In Article 2(4), the words “or the territory of the EFTA States” shall be inserted after the words “the customs territory of the Union”.’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 1179/2012 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 October 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Thórir IBSEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 337, 11.12.2012, p. 31.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Order entered March 5, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 21 - 00140 - CR EX PARTE MICHAEL SCH AEFER SIKES On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 02 - 20 - 0153 O RDER A pp e l l a nt has filed a notice of a p p ea l seeking review of the trial court’s order denying his motion for bail pending appeal. This is a n ac c e le ra t e d a pp e a l
g ov e rn e d b y T e x a s R ule of App e l l a te P r o c e dure 3 1. The clerk’s record has been filed in a ppellant’s appeal of the underlying judgment of conviction and resulting sentence, proceeding under assigned appellate cause number 05

- 2 0

- 0 1 126

- CR . The clerk’s record filed in that proceeding contains a designatio n of documents to file in connection with th e appeal of the order denying bail pending appeal, and all of the designated documents have been filed as part of the clerk’s record in cause no. 05

- 2 0

- 01 1 26

-– 2

– CR

. I n lieu of ordering a new clerk’s record filed th at would duplicate the documents already filed in connection with appellant’s underlying appeal, we DI R ECT the Clerk to transfer a copy of the clerk’s record in cause no. 05

- 2 0

- 0 1 126

- CR into the appellate record for this cause. The parties may request a

s upplemental clerk’s record for any additional documents they deem necessary for resolution of this appeal. We ORDER the court reporter to file, by March 22, 2021 , the reporter’s record of the hearing on the application for bail pending appeal. In the even t no hearing was conducted or no reporter’s record was made of the hearing, the court reporter shall file written verificatio n that no reporter’s record was made. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed by April 12, 2021

. We ORDER the State to file its brief by May 3, 2021

. After the record and briefs are filed, t he Court will notify the parties by letter of the submission date and panel. A ppellate cause number 05

- 2 0

- 0 1 1 26

- CR is a separate matter subject to the normal briefing schedule established by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The briefing submitted in this case under the accelerated schedule established above is to be strictly limited to issues arising from the order den ying appellant’s motion for bail pending appeal. W e DI R ECT the Cl e rk to s e nd c opies of th i s ord e r to the Hono ra b l e B r e tt Allen H a ll , P r e sid i ng J ud g e , 382nd Judicial District Court ; Linda A. K a i s er,– 3

– official court reporter, 382nd Judicial District Court; L ea Carlson , Rockw all C ou n t y District C le r k; and c ouns e l for a l l pa r t i e s.

/s/ L ANA MYERS JUSTICE