alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gesuclais BRUTUS, Appellant, v. MEARS TRANSPORTATION GROUP and Bridgefield Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 1D10-2795.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 2010.

Gesuclais Brutus, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

By notice of appeal filed May 5, 2010, the appellant seeks review of an order rendered November 30, 2007. Because the notice of appeal appeared untimely, this court directed the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The appellant has failed to respond to the show cause order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*§ 440.25(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (providing that orders of judges of compensation claims “shall become final 80 days after mailing of copies of such order to the parties” unless timely appealed); Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(b)(3) (providing this court’s jurisdiction is invoked if notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of rendition of order to be reviewed); *see also, e.g., Metellus v. State,*900 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla.2005) (noting jurisdictional rule cannot be altered by court or by agreement of parties); *Metro. Dade County v. Vasquez,*659 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2014

Nos. 04-13-00834-CR & 04-13-00835-CR

Albert NICOLAS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. B93-6 & B93-7

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 

04-13-00834-cR and 13-00835-CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, and other 

pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. 

However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, 

if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in 

the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single 

appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single 

appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a 

single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, and 

mandate.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Walter N. SMITH, Appellant, v. Walter A. McNEIL, SECRETARY, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D09-5630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 25, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 2010.

*299Walter N. Smith, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, La-Dawna Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, and Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CLARK, J.

Walter N. Smith, a prisoner, in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, appeals the trial court’s final order denying the writ of habeas corpus and dismissing his petition as moot. Appellant’s petition was filed in the circuit court in July, 2009, challenging his retention in close management status within Florida State Prison. However, attached to its responsive pleading, the Department of Corrections submitted evidence showing that in August, 2009, Appellant was removed from close management status and transferred to another correctional facility where close custody is not a classification option.

On appeal, Smith asserts that the trial court erred in deeming his petition moot because his custody classification is capable of repetition yet evading judicial review, and because he continues to suffer adverse legal consequences from his former classification. *See Martinez v. Singletary,*691 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Because the facts of this case distinguish it from *Martinez v. Singletary,*the trial court proceedings did not qualify for the exceptions to the mootness doctrine set out in that opinion. Unlike Martinez, Appellant’s close management classification was not temporarily suspended while he was transferred for treatment with the expectation that he would return to his original facility and custody status without further proceedings. Also unlike Martinez, Appellant is serving a life sentence, which precludes the prospects of gain-time and supervised release which might be collaterally affected by Appellant’s classification record. *See*§ 944.275(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; *Tal-Mason v. State,*700 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

The trial court’s final order was not erroneous and is therefore AFFIRMED.

KAHN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD GARCIA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 15858

D.C. No. 1:17

- cv

- 00865

- LJO

- JLT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Richard Garcia, a New Mexico state prisoner formerly d etained in

California , appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 19 83 action alleging constitutional claims . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for d ecision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15858

2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We

reverse and remand.

Garcia alleged in the complaint that he submitted his grievance 28 days after

the event at issue, and that the prison improperly rejected his grievance as

untimely. Because it is not clear from the face of the complaint that Garci a failed

to exhaust available a d m inistrative remedies , sua sponte dismissal of Garcia’s

action fo r failure to exhaust administrative remedies was improper at this early

stage of the proceedings. See C al. Code Regs. tit. 15

, § 3084.8(b) (prisoner “must

submit the appeal within 30 calendar days of . . . [t]he occurrence of the event or

the decision bei ng appealed”); Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 214

- 15 (2007) (sua

sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is only appropriate

if, taking the prisoner’s factual allegations as true, the complaint establishes the

prisoner’s failure to exhaust); Sapp v. Kimbrell , 62 3 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010)

(holding that “improper screening of an inmate’s administrative grievances renders

administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable’ such that exhau stion is not

required”)

. W e reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Garcia’s request for the court to order production of prison surveillance3 18

- 15858

video , set forth in the opening brief, is denied without prejudice to renewing the

request before the district court on remand

.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certifications Under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

JohnR. Lyon and Stephen A. Gorgol hereby certify that:

 

1.               Theyare the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, ofVista Medical Technologies Inc. 

 

2.               The Form 10-K report of Vista MedicalTechnologies Inc. that this certification accompanies fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

 

3.               The information contained in the Form10-K report of Vista Medical Technologies Inc. that this certificationaccompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Vista Medical Technologies Inc. 

 

Dated: March 30, 2004

 

 

| /s/ John R. Lyon      |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| **John R. Lyon**      |   |
|                  |   |
|                  |   |
| /s/ Stephen A. Gorgol |   |
| **Stephen A. Gorgol** |   |

 

----
#### Edwin Jose GARRIDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-4613.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 20, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 2010.

Jeffrey H. Garland of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Farinas v. State,*569 So.2d 425, 429 n. 7 (Fla.1990) (“It is well-established law that where the trial judge has extended counsel an opportunity to cure any error, and counsel fails to take advantage of the opportunity, such error, if any, was invited and will not warrant reversal.”) (citation omitted).

GROSS, C.J., CIKLIN, J., and KEYSER, JANIS BRUSTARES, Associate Judge, concur.
#### Emile David LABORDE, II, et al. v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al.

No. 2012-CC-0074.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Laborde, II, et al., Emile David;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Rehearing of this court’s action dated March 9, 2012, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. C-2007-2066 K; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00956.

Rehearing denied.
856 A.2d 32

#### In the Matter of Joseph Peter GUARRASI.

No. 934 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

*June 24,*2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2004, the Joint Petition for Temporary Suspension is granted, and it is hereby OR*385DERED that Joseph Peter Guarrasi is placed on temporary suspension pursuant to Rule 208(f), Pa.R.D.E., until further definitive action by this Court. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24481]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLIDT000000.L11200000.DD0000.241A.00]


Notice of Public Meetings, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory 
Council, Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the 
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls 
District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) subcommittee for the Jarbidge 
Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) will meet as indicated below.

DATES: October 13 and 27, 2010; November 3 and 17, 2010; and December 
1, 2010. The Twin Falls District RAC subcommittee members will meet at 
the Loong Hing Restaurant, 1719 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, ID. On each 
date, the meeting will begin at 6 p.m., and the public comment period 
will take place from 6:15 to 6:45 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Tiel-Nelson, BLM Twin Falls 
District Office, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301; (208) 
736-2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of 
the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in Idaho. The Jarbidge Draft RMP subcommittee will meet several times 
this fall to more thoroughly discuss different sections of the Jarbidge 
Draft RMP and bring the information back to the full RAC in January 
2011. During the October 13th meeting, RAC subcommittee members will 
discuss the transportation and recreation sections of the Jarbidge 
Draft RMP; during the October 27th meeting, they will discuss grazing 
issues. On November 3rd they will discuss special designations; on 
November 17th they will discuss rights of way and land use 
authorizations. On December 1st they will prepare the information 
collected to submit to the full RAC in January. More information about 
the RAC is available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/res/resource_advisory.3.html. The Jarbidge Draft RMP is available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/jarbidge_resource/Documents.html. 
RAC meetings are open to the public. For further information about the 
meeting, please contact Heather Tiel-Nelson, Public Affairs Specialist 
for the BLM Twin Falls District at (208) 736-2352.

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Bill Baker,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2010-24481 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     87,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,353
<PP&E>                                         198,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 340,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,878
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,533)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   340,758
<SALES>                                         15,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,077
<CGS>                                           12,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (128,066)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (128,066)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (128,066)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.047)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.047)
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132777(49) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132777 COA: 262687 Wayne CC: 04-011594-01 WILLIE G. HEARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s March 26, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
#### Todd *v.*Williford *et al.*

Appeal and Error, 3 G. J. p. 484, n. 19; p. 488, n. 34; 4 O. J. p. 605, n. 65 New.

No. 6316.

March 14, 1928.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Perryman. Warren superior court. October *5,*1927.

*E. P. & J. Cecil Ectvis*and *Joseph E. Polile,*for plaintiff.

*J. P. Wilhoit*and *M. L.*Felts, for defendants.

Hines, J.

1. “No cause shall be carried to the Supreme Court upon any bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto.” Civil Code, § 6138. An order dismissing certain paragraphs of a petition in equity is not such a final disposition of the cause as will entitle complainant to the writ of error. The proper remedy is by exception pendente lite. *Mayor of Brunswick*v. *Lamb,*60 *Ga.*342.

2. Where a plaintiff filed his petition for cancellation, and the defendant demurred generally, and specially to certain paragraphs of the petition, and the court sustained the demurrer to these paragraphs, but did not sustain the general demurrer, the judgment striking those paragraphs .was not such a final disposition of the case as will entitle the plaintiff to sue out a writ of error to this court to review such judgment.

3. Leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to enter as exceptions pendente lite the official copy of the present bill of exceptions which the clerk of the trial court retained in his office. *Atlanta National &c. Asso.*v. *Jones,*111 *Ga.*890 (36 S. E. 968).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except*

Atkinson and Gilbert, JJ.

Based upon *Burkhalter*v. *Roach,*145 *Ga.*834 (4) (90 S. E. 52), and *Brannon*v. *State,*147 *Ga.*499 (2) (94 S. E. 759), and because we have consistently adhered to the rulings there made, we dissent from the ruling made in the last headnote. We concur in the other rulings.
858 A.2d 58

#### In re NOMINATION PAPER of Ralph NADER and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004 Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia A. O’Connell, Objectors Appeal of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, and their Independent Electors.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Sept. 10, 2004.

Decided Sept. 20, 2004.

*562Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, for Peter Miguel Camejo and Ralph Nader, appellants

Christopher K. Walters, Philadelphia, Daniel I. Booker, Pittsburgh, Ira Steven Lefton, Philadelphia, for Linda S. Serody.

Jeremy David Feinstein, Pittsburgh, Milind Madhukar Shah, Philadelphia, for Roderick J. Sweets.

Efrem M. Grail, Pittsburgh, for Ronald Bergman, appellee.

Cynthia E. Kernick, Pittsburgh, for Richard Trinclisti.

Brian Anthony Gordon, Gregory M. Harvey, Philadelphia, for Julia A. O’Connell.

Louis Lawrence Boyle, for Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation.

Before: CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2004, the Order of the Commonwealth Court dated August 30, 2004 is REVERSED and VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED on an expedited basis for hearings on the Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo.

The Petition for Review of the Denial of a Request for a Stay and Supersedeas is dismissed as moot.

Opinion to follow.
#### CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE and Scibal Associates of Florida, Appellants, v. Lance KRAEMER, Appellee.

No. 1D10-3048.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Richard M. Stoudemire of Boyd & Jen-erette, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants.

David P. Dearing of Rahaim, Watson, Dearing & Moore, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier appeals an award of attorney’s fees and costs, and Claimant cross-appeals the denial of a claim for neu-romuscular massage therapy. We reverse the award of attorney’s fees and costs, and affirm the denial of neuromuscular massage therapy.

The Employer/Carrier defended the claim for therapy by asserting the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) because it was subject to utilization review, and by asserting that it was not medically necessary. The JCC concluded the claim was within his jurisdiction, but denied it because Claimant failed to prove it was medically necessary. We do not disturb the JCC’s conclusion that Claimant failed *340to prove the therapy was medically necessary. Although the Judge of Compensation Claims stated in the order that Claimant was seeking attorney’s fees under the “medical only” provision of section 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes, he awarded Claimant attorney’s fees and costs from the Employer/Carrier for “establishing jurisdiction.” This was clearly erroneous because Claimant did not.successfully assert a claim for medical benefits only. Consequently, the award of attorney’s fees and costs is REVERSED. The denial of neu-romuscular massage therapy is .AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.