Repository: freelawproject/juriscraper (language: python)

Issue:
Fill `ky` gap
Part of #929 

Between December 28th, 2017 and May 16th, 2020 , there are [6 documents](https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=court_id%3Aky&type=o&order_by=dateFiled%20desc&stat_Precedential=on&stat_Unknown%20Status=on&filed_after=12%2F28%2F2017&filed_before=05%2F16%2F2020) in CL. There should be 626 according to the [source](https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/search/opinion?q=true&advanced=false&searchFields%5B0%5D.searchType=&searchFields%5B0%5D.operation=%3E%3D&searchFields%5B0%5D.values%5B0%5D=10%2F28%2F2017&searchFields%5B0%5D.indexFieldName=filedDate&searchFields%5B1%5D.searchType=&searchFields%5B1%5D.operation=%3C%3D&searchFields%5B1%5D.values%5B0%5D=07%2F16%2F2020&searchFields%5B1%5D.indexFieldName=filedDate&searchFilters%5B0%5D.indexFieldName=caseHeader.court&searchFilters%5B0%5D.operation=%3D&searchFilters%5B0%5D.values%5B0%5D=Kentucky%20Supreme%20Court&p.page=1&_=1707868775141)


Discussion / hints:
The current scraper will only yield the most recent opinions, and there is no way to filter by date on that primary endpoint

However, there is a [Opinion Search portal](https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/search/opinion?q=true&advanced=true&p.page=1&p.sort=filedDate&p.sortdir=desc) on the same domain as the secondary endpoint.

On the backend, it calls the `opinions` [API](https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/opinions/search?queryString=true&searchFields%5B0%5D.searchType=&searchFields%5B0%5D.operation=%3E%3D&searchFields%5B0%5D.values%5B0%5D=04%2F03%2F2020&searchFields%5B0%5D.indexFieldName=filedDate&searchFields%5B1%5D.searchType=&searchFields%5B1%5D.operation=%3C%3D&searchFields%5B1%5D.values%5B0%5D=04%2F03%2F2022&searchFields%5B1%5D.indexFieldName=filedDate&searchFilters[0].indexFieldName=caseHeader.court&searchFilters[0].operation=%3D&searchFilters[0].values[0]=Kentucky+Supreme+Court). Comparing this portal with the primary endpoint, it seems to have the same data, and allows querying by date. As in the current scraper, another request will be needed to get the case name

I think it will be necessary (and a good opportunity for refactoring) to change the whole scraper to use the `opinions` API behind the Opinion Search portal

Fix patch:
diff --git a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/ky.py b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/ky.py
index 068ce66fe..ba7d3bfaa 100644
--- a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/ky.py
+++ b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/ky.py
@@ -12,160 +12,177 @@
                 to work around resources whose case names cannot be fetched to
                 to access restrictions.
     2020-08-28: Updated to use new secondary search portal at https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/
-Notes:
-    This scraper is unique. Kentucky does not provide case names in the primary
-    search portal's result page, making them almost useless. They have a secondary
-    search portal that allows a lookup by case year and number, which *does* provide
-    the case name.
-
-    Primary Search Portal:          http://apps.courts.ky.gov/supreme/sc_opinions.shtm
-    Primary Search Portal POST:     http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp
-    Secondary Search Portal:        https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/
-    Secondary Search Portal POST:   https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/cases/search
-
-
-    Our two step process is as follows:
-      1. Get the pdf url, case date, and docket number from the Primary Search Portal
-      2. If the above data is valid, use publication year and docket number
-         to fetch case name from Secondary Search Portal
-
-    Unlike other scrapers, all of the metadata above is gathered at download time,
-    saved on the local object, and merely echoed back in by the standard getters.
-    This design allows us to avoid issues with cases that have restricted access
-    in the Secondary Search Portal (example: year=2015, docket=000574).  These
-    restricted resources will be skipped.
-
-    Also fun, they use IP addresses instead of DNS and hide them behind HTML
-    frames hosted by real domains.
-
-    I tried calling to get more information, and though they've heard of us (a
-    first!), they didn't want to help, and seemed downright aggressive in their
-    opposition. Curious. Anyway, don't bother calling  again.
-
-    You can contact support@dtsearch.com with questions about the search
-    interface. Best of luck.
+    2024-04-08: Updated to use new opinion search portal, by grossir
 """
 
 import re
-
-from juriscraper.lib.string_utils import convert_date_string, titlecase
+from datetime import date, datetime, timedelta
+from typing import Dict, Optional, Tuple
+from urllib.parse import urlencode
+
+from juriscraper.AbstractSite import logger
+from juriscraper.lib.date_utils import make_date_range_tuples
+from juriscraper.lib.judge_parsers import normalize_judge_string
+from juriscraper.lib.string_utils import titlecase
 from juriscraper.OpinionSiteLinear import OpinionSiteLinear
 
 
 class Site(OpinionSiteLinear):
+    # Home: https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/login
+    first_opinion_date = datetime(1982, 2, 18).date()
+    days_interval = 10  # page size of 25
+
+    api_court = "Kentucky Supreme Court"
+    api_url = (
+        "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/opinions/search?"
+    )
+    docket_entry_url = "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments?filter=parentCategory%3Ddocketentries%2CparentID%3D{}"
+    pdf_url = "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/{}/download"
+
+    # Examples: "BY JUDGE EASTON", "BY CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER AFFIRMING",
+    # "BY JUDGE A. JONES"
+    judge_regex = r"BY(\sCHIEF)?\s(JUDGE|JUSTICE)\s(?P<judge>(\w\.\s)?\w+)"
+
+    # Examples: "2022-CA-1454, 1456, 1457"
+    docket_regex = r"\d{4}-(CA|SC)-\d{4}(,\s?\d{4})*"
+
     def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
         super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
         self.court_id = self.__module__
-        # Sometimes they change the ip/endpoint below, in which
-        # case the scraper will throw a 404 error. just go to
-        # http://apps.courts.ky.gov/supreme/sc_opinions.shtm
-        # and inspect the form html and grab the new "action" url
-        self.url = "http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll"
-        # Sometimes they also change up the key/value pairs below.
-        # What you want to do is go to the url in the comment above,
-        # open your browser inspector's network tab, then search on
-        # the page's form for "xfirstword", 100 results, sorted by
-        # date, click search, and then inspect the Params for the
-        # POST request that was just triggered. This site sucks.
-        self.parameters = {
-            "index": "*{aa61be39717dafae0e114c24b74f68db}+Supreme+Court+Opinions+(1996+)",
-            "request": "xfirstword",
-            "fuzziness": "0",
-            "MaxFiles": "100",
-            "autoStopLimit": "0",
-            "sort": "Date",
-            "cmd": "search",
-            "SearchForm": "%%SearchForm%%",
-            "dtsPdfWh": "*",
-            "OrigSearchForm": "/dtsearch_form.html",
-            "pageSize": "1000",
-            "fileConditions": "",
-            "booleanConditions": "",
+        self.set_url()
+        self.make_backscrape_iterable(kwargs)
+
+    def set_url(
+        self, start: Optional[date] = None, end: Optional[date] = None
+    ) -> None:
+        """Sets URL with appropiate query parameters
+
+        :param start: start date
+        :param end: end date
+        :return None
+        """
+        if not start:
+            end = datetime.now()
+            start = end - timedelta(30)
+
+        logger.info("Date range %s %s", start, end)
+        params = {
+            "queryString": "true",
+            "searchFields[0].operation": ">=",
+            "searchFields[0].values[0]": start.strftime("%m/%d/%Y"),
+            "searchFields[0].indexFieldName": "filedDate",
+            "searchFields[1].operation": "<=",
+            "searchFields[1].values[0]": end.strftime("%m/%d/%Y"),
+            "searchFields[1].indexFieldName": "filedDate",
+            "searchFilters[0].indexFieldName": "caseHeader.court",
+            "searchFilters[0].operation": "=",
+            "searchFilters[0].values[0]": self.api_court,
         }
-        self.method = "POST"
-        self.docket_number_regex = re.compile(
-            r"(?P<year>\d{4})-(?P<court>[SC]{2})-(?P<number>\d+)"
+        self.url = f"{self.api_url}{urlencode(params)}"
+
+    def _process_html(self) -> None:
+        """Parse API JSON response into case dictionaries
+
+        :return None
+        """
+        result_json = self.html
+
+        for result in result_json["resultItems"]:
+            case_name = ""
+            row = result["rowMap"]
+            date_filed = row["filedDate"]
+            disposition = row["docketEntryDescription"]
+            docket_number = row["caseHeader.caseNumber"]
+
+            # On "PUBLIC OPINIONS IN CONFIDENTIAL CASES", docket numbers
+            # and case names are not as expected
+            # "2024 CA ADMIN - NON-CONFIDENTIAL OPINION - 002"
+            # The proper docket number may be found on the disposition string
+            if not re.search(self.docket_regex, docket_number) and (
+                docket_match := re.search(self.docket_regex, disposition)
+            ):
+                docket_number = docket_match.group(0)
+                # Delete docket numbers from disposition
+                disposition = re.sub(self.docket_regex, "", disposition)
+                if "\n" in disposition:
+                    disposition, case_name = disposition.split("\n", 1)
+
+            judge = ""
+            if judge_match := re.search(self.judge_regex, disposition):
+                judge = normalize_judge_string(judge_match.group("judge"))[0]
+                # Drop from the disposition everything after "BY JUDGE..."
+                # May contain the case name
+                disposition = re.split(self.judge_regex, disposition)[0]
+
+            if self.test_mode_enabled():
+                # detail request has been manually nested in the test file
+                doc_json = result["detailJson"]
+            else:
+                detail_url = self.docket_entry_url.format(row["docketEntryID"])
+                doc_json = self.get_json(detail_url)
+
+            if not case_name:
+                case_name = doc_json[0]["caseHeader"].get("shortTitle")
+            doc_id = doc_json[0].get("documentID")
+            doc_text = doc_json[0]["documentText"][0]
+
+            if "\r\nTO BE PUBLISHED \r\n" in doc_text:
+                status = "Published"
+            else:
+                status = "Unpublished"
+
+            self.cases.append(
+                {
+                    "url": self.pdf_url.format(doc_id),
+                    "name": titlecase(case_name),
+                    "disposition": disposition,
+                    "docket": docket_number,
+                    "date": date_filed,
+                    "status": status,
+                    "judge": judge,
+                }
+            )
+
+    def get_json(self, url: str) -> Dict:
+        """Get JSON from the API
+
+        :param url: url
+        :return: JSON as dict
+        """
+        self._request_url_get(url)
+        self._post_process_response()
+        return self._return_response_text_object()
+
+    def make_backscrape_iterable(self, kwargs: dict) -> None:
+        """Checks if backscrape start and end arguments have been passed
+        by caller, and parses them accordingly
+
+        :param kwargs: passed when initializing the scraper, may or
+            may not contain backscrape controlling arguments
+        :return None
+        """
+        start = kwargs.get("backscrape_start")
+        end = kwargs.get("backscrape_end")
+
+        if start:
+            start = datetime.strptime(start, "%m/%d/%Y")
+        else:
+            start = self.first_opinion_date
+        if end:
+            end = datetime.strptime(end, "%m/%d/%Y")
+        else:
+            end = datetime.now()
+
+        self.back_scrape_iterable = make_date_range_tuples(
+            start, end, self.days_interval
         )
-        self.hrefs_contain = "Opinions"
-
-    def _process_html(self):
-        # Search second column cells for valid opinions
-        data_cell_path = "//table//tr/td[2]/font"
-        for cell in self.html.xpath(data_cell_path):
-            # Cell must contain a link
-            if cell.xpath("a"):
-                link_href = cell.xpath("a/@href")[0].strip()
-                cell_text = cell.xpath("text()")
-                date = self._parse_date_from_cell_text(cell_text)
-                # Cell must contain a parse-able date
-                if date:
-                    docket_match = self.docket_number_regex.search(link_href)
-                    # Link must contain a docket number conforming to expected format
-                    if docket_match:
-                        if self.test_mode_enabled():
-                            # Don't fetch names when running tests
-                            name = "No case names fetched during tests."
-                        else:
-                            # Fetch case name from external portal search (see doc string at top for details)
-                            case_number = "{}-{}-{}".format(
-                                docket_match.group("year"),
-                                docket_match.group("court"),
-                                docket_match.group("number")[-4:],
-                            )
-                            name = self._fetch_case_name(case_number)
-                        if name:
-                            docket_number = "{} {} {}".format(
-                                docket_match.group("year"),
-                                docket_match.group("court"),
-                                docket_match.group("number"),
-                            )
-                            self.cases.append(
-                                {
-                                    "date": date,
-                                    "docket": docket_number,
-                                    "name": name,
-                                    "status": "Unknown",
-                                    "url": link_href,
-                                }
-                            )
-
-    def _parse_date_from_cell_text(self, cell_text):
-        date = False
-        for text in cell_text:
-            try:
-                date = text.strip()
-                convert_date_string(date)
-                break
-            except ValueError:
-                pass
-        return date
-
-    def _fetch_case_name(self, case_number):
-        """Fetch case name for a given docket number + publication year pair."""
-
-        # If case_number is not expected 12 characters, skip it, since
-        # we can't know how to fix the courts typo. They likely forgot
-        # to '0' pad the beginning or the end of the 'number' suffix,
-        # but we can't know for sure.
-        if len(case_number) != 12:
-            return False
-
-        url = "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/cases/search"
-        self.request["parameters"] = {
-            "params": {
-                "queryString": "true",
-                "searchFields[0].searchType": "Starts With",
-                "searchFields[0].operation": "=",
-                "searchFields[0].values[0]": case_number,
-                "searchFields[0].indexFieldName": "caseNumber",
-            }
-        }
 
-        self._request_url_get(url)
-        json = self.request["response"].json()
+    def _download_backwards(self, dates: Tuple[date]) -> None:
+        """Set date range from backscraping args and scrape
 
-        try:
-            title = json["resultItems"][0]["rowMap"]["shortTitle"]
-        except IndexError:
-            return False
-        return titlecase(title)
+        :param dates: (start_date, end_date) tuple
+        :return None
+        """
+        self.set_url(*dates)
+        self.html = self._download()
+        self._process_html()
diff --git a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/kyctapp.py b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/kyctapp.py
index a996aad31..4c2885a93 100644
--- a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/kyctapp.py
+++ b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/kyctapp.py
@@ -5,18 +5,21 @@
 
 """
 
-import re
-
 from juriscraper.opinions.united_states.state import ky
 
 
 class Site(ky.Site):
+    api_court = "Kentucky Court of Appeals"
+
     def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
         super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
         self.court_id = self.__module__
-        self.parameters["index"] = (
-            "*{aaa711b4d9721269574a3d848abb439b} Court of Appeals Opinions (1996+)"
-        )
-        self.docket_number_regex = re.compile(
-            r"(?P<year>\d{4})-(?P<court>[CA]{2})-(?P<number>\d+)"
-        )
+
+    def get_status(self, entry_subtype: str) -> str:
+        if "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED" in entry_subtype:
+            return "Unpublished"
+
+        if "TO BE PUBLISHED" in entry_subtype:
+            return "Published"
+
+        return "Unknown"


Test patch:
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.compare.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.compare.json
index 24a9d3cb6..a732738be 100644
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.compare.json
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.compare.json
@@ -1,162 +1,38 @@
 [
   {
-    "case_dates": "2014-06-17",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000257-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "In Re: Gary Alan Tabler",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/09fd331e35c0aea4374f136568d854db0d01b0b3be6e96bccec9336b7a5a1e10/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unpublished",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000257",
+    "dispositions": "OPINION AND ORDER INDEFINITELY SUSPENDING",
+    "docket_numbers": "2024-SC-0027",
+    "judges": "",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2014-06-17",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000197-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-18",
+    "case_names": "Donavon I. Smith v. Commonwealth of Kentucky",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/43d8297696dfb46ee0975cf4c68d398673dc1c3fd36d442a1480109615a598e9/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unpublished",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000197",
+    "dispositions": "MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING",
+    "docket_numbers": "2022-SC-0459",
+    "judges": "",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2014-06-17",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000157-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-18",
+    "case_names": "Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Ricky D. Ullman, Jr.",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/6ed9fa4a87d5db9e1b9ab1ac34d4407824476e7d976db6bc786036f7f98aedc8/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000157",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-06-17",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000156-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000156",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-06-17",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000112-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000112",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-06-17",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2013-SC-000765-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2013 SC 000765",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-05-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000111-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000111",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-05-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000093-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000093",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-05-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000056-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000056",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-05-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000043-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000043",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-05-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000042-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000042",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-05-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000041-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000041",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-04-15",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2013-SC-000792-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2013 SC 000792",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-04-03",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2014-SC-000057-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2014 SC 000057",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2014-03-19",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/2013-SC-000748-OA.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2013 SC 000748",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2012-12-19",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "/Opinions/SCOpinionPDF_1.PDF2012-SC-000413-KB.PDF",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2012 SC 000413",
+    "dispositions": "OPINION OF THE COURT",
+    "docket_numbers": "2022-SC-0293",
+    "judges": "Lambert",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   }
 ]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.html b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.html
deleted file mode 100644
index f0b770b26..000000000
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,247 +0,0 @@
-<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Search results: xfirstword</Title></Head><Body>
-<script language=JavaScript src=hitnav.js></script>
-<FONT Face=Verdana Size=2><hr size=6 noshade color=#000080><FONT Face=Verdana Size=2><B>Search Results: Kentucky Supreme Court Opinions<BR><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1><B>Request: </B>xfirstword<BR>4633 document(s) retrieved</B></Font><BR><A href=dtsearch_form.html>New Search</A>
-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href=aspSample_help.html target=doc>Help</A><HR>
-<table border=0 width=100%><TR valign=top><TD bgcolor=#003399 color=#ffffff align=center width=20%><font face=verdana color=#ffffff size=2>Hits</TD><TD bgcolor=#003399 color=#ffffff align=center width=80%><font face=verdana color=#ffffff size=2>Document</TD></TR>
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2013-SC-000748-OA.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4609&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2013-SC-000748-OA.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 140 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 3/19/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2013-SC-000765-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4610&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2013-SC-000765-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 69 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2013-SC-000792-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4611&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2013-SC-000792-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 35 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/15/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000041-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4612&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000041-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 57 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/6/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000042-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4613&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000042-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 67 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/6/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000043-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4614&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000043-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 108 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/6/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000056-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4615&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000056-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 43 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/6/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000057-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4616&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000057-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 59 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/3/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000093-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4617&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000093-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 64 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/6/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000111-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4618&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000111-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 47 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/6/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000112-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4619&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000112-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 84 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000156-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4620&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000156-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 32 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000157-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4621&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000157-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 44 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000197-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4622&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000197-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 75 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/2014-SC-000257-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4623&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-2014-SC-000257-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 63 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4624&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-COA_BothCourts_Index.dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 0 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/6/2007<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4625&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-COA_COAIndex.dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 0 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/6/2007<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4626&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-Court of Appeals Opinions.dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 1 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 8/23/2005<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4627&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-FormBuilder.xml</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 10 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 9/12/2005<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4628&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-ixlib.ilb</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 0 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/17/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/page 1.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4629&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-page 1.pdf</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 66 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/13/2010<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4634&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-SC_BothCourts.dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 0 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 1/19/2007<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4635&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-SC_SCIndex (1).dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 0 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/15/2006<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/Scan.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4630&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-Scan.pdf</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 35 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/8/2011<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/Scan000.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4631&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-Scan000.pdf</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 35 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 6/8/2011<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/SCOpinionPDF_1.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4632&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-SCOpinionPDF_1.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 46 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 4/3/2013<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="/Opinions/SCOpinionPDF_1.PDF2012-SC-000413-KB.PDF#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=4633&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-SCOpinionPDF_1.PDF2012-SC-000413-KB.PDF</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 220 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 12/19/2012<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4636&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-SupremeCourt_Index.dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 0 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 5/18/2006<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4637&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-SupremeCourt_Opinions.dtSearchTask</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 1 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 10/20/2005<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-
-<TR valign=top><TD align=right bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>1</TD>
-<TD align=left bgcolor=#eeeeee><FONT Face=Verdana Size=1>  <A href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=4638&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=1&hits=1+&hc=4633&req=xfirstword" target=doc>
-Thumbs.db</A><BR>
-<B>Size:</B> 586 kb
-<BR><B>Date:</B> 7/1/2014<BR>
-</TD></TR>
-
-</table><HR>
-</BODY></HTML>
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ca98f6702
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/ky_example.json
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+{
+    "resultItems": [
+        {
+            "id": "af9a2e8572d5fd3b112911ab324ce2cb2ece2c5941c686bfee7a97d6e7b1bce0",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2022-SC-0293",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "REVERSING AND REINSTATING",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE LAMBERT REVERSING, REINSTATING, AND REMANDING",
+                "docketEntryType": "DISPOSITION - OPINION OF THE COURT BY A JUSTICE",
+                "docketEntryID": "af9a2e8572d5fd3b112911ab324ce2cb2ece2c5941c686bfee7a97d6e7b1bce0",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "cb4f7915904a56bbc8c79881536c971dc05312d46215a2aa5005e48d5a4b7836",
+                "filedDate": "2024-04-18T09:03:02.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3.0,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119508",
+                    "documentID": "6ed9fa4a87d5db9e1b9ab1ac34d4407824476e7d976db6bc786036f7f98aedc8",
+                    "documentName": "OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE REVERSING AND REINSTATING",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "RENDERED:  APRIL 18, 2024 \r\nTO BE PUBLISHED \r\n \r\nSupreme Court of Kentucky \r\n \r\n2022-SC-0293-DG \r\n \r\n \r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY  APPELLANT \r\n \r\n \r\nON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS \r\nV. NOS. 2021-CA-0077, 2021-CA-0111, \r\n & 2021-CA-0112 \r\nOLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT NO. 13-CR-00124 \r\n \r\n \r\nRICKY D. ULLMAN, JR. APPELLEE \r\n \r\n \r\nOPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE LAMBERT \r\n \r\nREVERSING, REINSTATING, & REMANDING\r\n \r\n Ricky Ullman pled guilty to three counts of distribution of a matter \r\nportraying a sexual performance by a minor and of being a second-degree \r\npersistent felony offender (PFO).  The Oldham Circuit Court sentenced him to \r\ntwelve years, probated for five years.  The circuit court imposed several \r\nconditions on Ullman�s probation including, inter alia, to complete a \r\ncommunity-based sex offender treatment program (SOTP), maintain sobriety, \r\nand report to the Division of Probation and Parole as directed.  The circuit \r\ncourt later revoked his probation based on his failure to complete SOTP, his \r\nmultiple failed drug screens, and for absconding from probation and parole.   \r\n \r\n2 \r\n \r\n Nearly two years after his probation was revoked, he filed a CR1 60.02 \r\nmotion challenging the circuit court�s revocation order on the basis that he \r\ncould not be legally required to complete SOTP.  The circuit court granted him \r\nCR 60.02 relief and vacated its revocation order.  The Court of Appeals \r\naffirmed.  After thorough review, we hold that Ullman�s challenge to the \r\ncondition that he complete SOTP was untimely and order that the circuit \r\ncourt�s revocation order be reinstated.  We further hold that a sentencing court \r\nmay, in accordance with KRS2 533.030, impose SOTP as a condition of \r\nprobation for defendants who have not been convicted of a �sex crime� as that \r\nterm is defined by KRS 17.500.  Finally, we hold that that Ullman�s secondary \r\nchallenge to the circuit court�s revocation order under KRS 439.3106 was not \r\nproperly preserved for our review, and that this case must be remanded for \r\nconsideration of Ullman�s RCr3 11.42 claim that has not yet been addressed by \r\nthe circuit court.   \r\nI. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND \r\n On September 13, 2013, an Oldham County Grand Jury returned a \r\nseven-count indictment against Ullman.  Count I and Count II charged Ullman \r\nwith first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor; Count III charged use of a \r\nminor in a sexual performance; Count IV charged rape in the third-degree; \r\nCount V charged unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage \r\n \r\n1 Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure.  \r\n2 Kentucky Revised Statute.  \r\n3 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure.   \r\n \r\n3 \r\n \r\nin sexual activity; Count VI charged sexual abuse in the first-degree; and \r\nCount VII charged Ullman with being a first-degree PFO. \r\n Although this case was resolved by a plea agreement, this Court discerns \r\nfrom the record before us that the factual basis for Ullman�s indictment can be \r\nfairly recounted as follows.  From approximately June 18, 2013, to June 23, \r\n2013, Ullman, who was thirty-two years old, exchanged sexually explicit text \r\nmessages and photographs with the victim in this case, who was fourteen years \r\nold.  The victim, Jane,4 lived in the same apartment complex as Ullman and \r\nwas a friend of Ullman�s twelve-year-old daughter.  On June 23, 2013, Jane \r\nhad a sleepover with Ullman�s daughter at his apartment.  After Ullman�s \r\ndaughter went to sleep, Jane stayed up with Ullman and at approximately 4:30 \r\nam she and Ullman went into his bedroom.  Ullman then vaginally raped Jane \r\nfor approximately ten minutes and ejaculated on her stomach.  Jane disclosed \r\nwhat occurred to her mother five days later, and her mother reported the \r\nincident to the Oldham County Police Department.   \r\n In November 2014, after the Commonwealth made an initial plea offer \r\nand had been engaged in plea negations with Ullman for several months, the \r\nCommonwealth informed the circuit court that Jane had recanted some of her \r\nallegations concerning the rape.  The Commonwealth explained that Jane \r\nrecanted in text messages sent to Ullman�s daughter, but she did not recant to \r\nlaw enforcement or anyone else.  Nevertheless, the Commonwealth recognized \r\n \r\n4 The victim is referred to via pseudonym to protect her privacy.   \r\n \r\n4 \r\n \r\nthat Jane�s recantation �complicated� its ability to prove the non-cellphone \r\nrelated offenses in Ullman�s indictment.  It accordingly decided to revise its \r\ninitial offer on a plea of guilty and resume negotiations with Ullman.  It \r\nremained undisputed that Ullman had at least three sexually explicit \r\nphotographs of Jane on his cellphone.",
+                        "On April 2, 2015, Ullman accepted the Commonwealth�s revised offer, \r\nwhich was as follows: Counts I, II, and III were each amended to distribution of \r\na matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor;5 Counts IV, V, and VI \r\nwere dismissed; and Count VII was amended to charge Ullman with being a \r\nsecond-degree persistent felony offender.  The Commonwealth recommended a \r\nten-year sentence on Count I based on the persistent felony offender \r\nenhancement of Count VII, two years on Count II, and two years on Count III.  \r\nCounts I and II would run consecutive to one another and concurrent with \r\nCount III for a total of twelve years.6   The Commonwealth required that Ullman \r\nserve one year of imprisonment starting from the date of the entry of his guilty \r\nplea with the balance probated for five years.   \r\n Under the terms of the plea agreement, Ullman also agreed to several \r\nrecommended conditions of probation.  Namely, that he: submit to a sex \r\noffender presentence evaluation pursuant to KRS 439.265(6); submit to HIV \r\n \r\n5 A Class D felony.  KRS 531.340(3)(a).  We clarify that KRS 531.340(2) provides \r\na rebuttable presumption of intent to distribute if an individual has more than one \r\nunit of material of a matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor.   \r\n6 We note that under the terms of the plea agreement, the twelve-year sentence \r\nunder the indictment in 13-CR-0124 was to run concurrent with an unrelated five-\r\nyear sentence for flagrant non-support, Oldham Circuit Court, No. 12-CR-0086. \r\n \r\n5 \r\n \r\ntesting pursuant to KRS 510.320; submit a DNA sample to law enforcement \r\npursuant to KRS 17.170; successfully complete an SOTP pursuant to KRS \r\n197.400, et seq; register as a sex offender pursuant to KRS 17.495, et seq; be \r\nsubject to a five-year period of postincarceration supervision pursuant to KRS \r\n532.043; and not have �any missed, diluted, refused, or positive drug screens.�  \r\nAfter a thorough Boykin7 colloquy, the circuit court accepted Ullman�s \r\nunconditional guilty plea and postponed the entry of his sentence until after \r\nhis presentence sex offender evaluation was completed.  On the same day, the \r\ncourt also entered an order requiring him to submit to HIV and DNA testing.   \r\n On June 5, 2015, following a sentencing hearing, the circuit court \r\nentered a judgment and sentence on a plea of guilty on a standard AOC8-445 \r\nForm (sentencing order) and an accompanying order of probation on an AOC-\r\n455 Form (probation order).   \r\n In accordance with the Commonwealth�s recommendation, the \r\nsentencing order sentenced Ullman to �a maximum term of 12 years. . . \r\nprobated with an alternative sentence as stated in the attached Order of \r\nProbation.�  The sentencing order further mandated that Ullman be subject to \r\na five-year period of postincarceration supervision and that he submit a sample \r\nof his DNA to law enforcement.  The court also entered a separate judgment of \r\nregistration designation order on an AOC-454 Form wherein the court checked \r\nseparate boxes finding that Ullman was guilty of a �sex crime� and a �criminal \r\n \r\n7 Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). \r\n8 Administrative Office of the Courts.   \r\n \r\n6 \r\n \r\noffense against a victim who is a minor� and found that he was therefore \r\nmandated to register as a sex offender.  As he was adjudged guilty of �two or \r\nmore felony criminal offenses against a victim who is a minor,� he was required \r\nto be a lifetime registrant.  \r\n In the probation order the court sentenced Ullman to �probation with an \r\nalternative sentence. . . under the supervision of the Division of Probation and \r\nParole [for] 5 years[.]�  In accordance with his plea agreement, Ullman was to \r\nserve one year with credit for time served beginning from April 2, 2015, the \r\ndate of his plea.  The court ordered several �additional conditions� of probation.  \r\nIn relevant part, it ordered Ullman to: �Avoid injurious or vicious habits�; \r\n�Undergo available medical, substance abuse[,] or psychiatric treatment as \r\nfollows: S.O.T.P. offered by state (approved) in community based txt program.  \r\nMust complete successfully; no changing providers [without] court order�; \r\n�Report to probation officer as directed�; �Obey all rules and regulations \r\nimposed by Probation and Parole�; and �Other:9 (1) 25 sup. fee (2) no new off, \r\nprob. voil�n, missed refused positive diluted drug screens (3) all cond�ns of plea \r\noffer are incorporated (4) all conditions listed in SORA10 are incorporated \r\nherein, see attached, (5) defendant allowed contact with his children[.]�  The \r\nSORA conditions referred to by the court were attached to the probation order \r\nand stated, in relevant part: \r\nSupervision Considerations: For Mr.",
+                        "Ullman to maintain an offense-\r\nfree lifestyle, in the context of his being found guilty of the charges \r\n \r\n9 What follows was handwritten by the court.  \r\n10 Sex Offender Risk Assessment.  \r\n \r\n7 \r\n \r\nas described above, and to minimize his chances of acting out \r\nagain, it is recommended that he: \r\n \r\n� Enter a counseling program that is specifically designed to \r\naddress sexual deviancy and sex offender issues.  It would \r\nbe best for this counseling to be conducted by a professional \r\nwho is experienced in working with sex offender issues and \r\nhas been designated by the Sex Offender Risk Advisory \r\nBoard as an �Approved Provider� of sex offender treatment.  \r\nHe should follow all program rules, maintain adequate \r\ntreatment participation, and complete the program \r\nsatisfactorily, as judged by the program therapist. \r\n \r\n. . .  \r\n \r\nNOTE: Unless these recommendations are made conditions of \r\nMr. Ullman�s release plan, his adhering to these \r\nrecommendations would be entirely voluntary, and there is no \r\nreason to expect that he would do so.11 \r\n \r\nThe parties agreed that Ullman would participate in a community based SOTP \r\nprogram, meaning that he would not be enrolled in an SOTP program until \r\nafter he had served his one-year sentence. \r\n Following Ullman�s sentencing, the record is uneventful until March 28, \r\n2017, when the Division of Probation and Parole filed a �violation of supervision \r\nreport.�  The report recounted four separate violations of Ullman�s conditions of \r\nprobation.  On January 10, 2017, Ullman reported to his probation officer for a \r\nscheduled drug screen but stated he could not produce a sample.  The officer \r\n \r\n11 An order concerning Ullman�s SORA dated June 8, 2015, and entered on \r\nJune 12, ruled in relevant part: �Based upon the victim�s recantation, and the \r\nCommonwealth�s agreement to dismiss the charges as well as the Defendants (sic) \r\ndispute of the accuracy of these allegations, the Court enters this Order to reflect that \r\nthe Presentencing Investigation Report should be stricken with regard to any \r\nallegations of sexual intercourse or other facts which would lead to any inference of \r\nguilt on Counts IV, V, and VI.  Counts I, II, and III remain unchanged and those \r\nconsist of Matter Portraying Sex Performance by a Minor, First Offense, three counts, \r\nas well as finally Count VII, plea of guilty status as [PFO 2nd].� \r\n \r\n8 \r\n \r\ninstructed him to come back the next day for a drug screen, but he failed to \r\nreport.  On March 1, 2017, he failed to report for a scheduled meeting with this \r\nprobation officer.  On March 22, 2017, he reported for a drug screen and \r\nadmitted to using Lortab and the drug screen showed the presence of both \r\nLortab and methamphetamine.  Ullman filled out an admission sanction form \r\nacknowledging his use of both drugs and was taken into custody the same day.  \r\nFinally, the report notes that Ullman �was terminated from the sex offender \r\ntreatment program as directed, for violating the drug policy, by testing positive \r\non a drug test.�  A separate report from the treatment program indicated this \r\noccurred on March 27, 2017.  Revocation of Ullman�s parole was requested \r\nbased on the foregoing violations.  \r\n Two months later, on May 25, Ullman appeared before the circuit court \r\nfor a revocation hearing.  The Commonwealth and Ullman�s counsel came to an \r\nagreement, which was sanctioned by the court, that Ullman could be released \r\nfrom custody that day and continue probation if he could later prove that he \r\nwas employed, that he had undergone a mental health assessment, and that he \r\nhad re-enrolled in SOTP.  Apparently, the community based SOTP that Ullman \r\nhad been in would allow a terminated participant to re-enroll after 180 days if \r\nit was the first time he or she had been terminated from the program.  Over the \r\ncourse of three subsequent court dates�one in June 2017, one in September \r\n2017, and one in October 2017�Ullman was able to prove those three \r\nrequirements to the court�s satisfaction.   \r\n \r\n9 \r\n \r\n Later, the Division of Probation and Parole filed two additional violation \r\nof supervision reports dated March 20, 2018, and April 18, 2018, respectively.",
+                        "The violations alleged across both reports were as follows: Ullman began \r\nsubstance use disorder treatment with an outpatient program on September 6, \r\n2017, and was discharged from the program on September 28 for excessive \r\nabsences and multiple missed drug screens; on October 9, 2017, he missed a \r\nscheduled meeting with his probation officer; on February 22, 2018, his drug \r\nscreen was positive for Oxycodone; he failed to report to his probation officer on \r\nMarch 16, March 21, March 28, and April 17, 2018; on March 21, 2018, he \r\nwas discharged from his substance use disorder class for excessive absences; \r\non April 18, 2018, his probation officer attempted a home visit unsuccessfully \r\nand left a note directing Ullman to report to the officer the next day and he did \r\nnot; and, finally, on April 4, 2018, Ullman was terminated from his SOTP for \r\nthe second time for violating the following terms of the program�s contract: \r\nfailing to take ownership of crime, having two unexcused absences within 90 \r\ndays of one another, failing to complete a therapy task within 120 days, failing \r\na drug screen, failing to complete substance use disorder classes, and failing to \r\nmake any of the $5 per month payments for the SOTP classes.  Ullman was \r\nlater taken into custody based on an arrest warrant for absconding from \r\nsupervision, and the Division of Probation and Parole again requested that his \r\nprobation be revoked based on the foregoing violations.   \r\n On May 24, 2018, the circuit court held a revocation hearing and entered \r\na revocation order on the same day.  The Commonwealth requested that \r\n \r\n10 \r\n \r\nUllman�s probation be revoked as he had been given several chances and had \r\ndemonstrated he was not going to comply with the conditions of his probation.  \r\nThe circuit court agreed and orally ruled, �I am going to revoke him on this.  He \r\nknows, he�s been in front of me many times, he knows he had to do this, and \r\nhe did not get it done so I�m going to go ahead and revoke his probation.�  The \r\ncourt�s revocation order simply stated that Ullman �stipulated to violations of \r\nprobation� and a handwritten annotation on the order said, �failure to complete \r\nSOTP, + others.�   \r\n On January 13, 2020, one year and eight months after Ullman�s \r\nprobation was revoked, Ullman filed a combined motion under CR 60.02 and \r\nRCr 11.42.  His CR 60.02 motion sought to vacate the June 5, 2015, \r\nsentencing and probation orders as well as the May 24, 2018, revocation order.  \r\nHis RCr 11.42 motion also sought to vacate the revocation order.  \r\n Ullman asserted in his CR 60.02 motion, arguing under Phon v. \r\nCommonwealth, 545 S.W.3d 284 (Ky. 2018), McClanahan v. Commonwealth, \r\n308 S.W.3d 694 (Ky. 2010), and Ladriere v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 278 \r\n(Ky. 2010), that the sentencing and probation orders imposed sentences that \r\nwere illegal and therefore void by mandating that he: submit to a sexual \r\noffender risk assessment, submit to HIV testing, complete an SOTP, and be \r\nsubject to a five-year period of postincarceration supervision.  He further \r\nargued that the revocation order was void because the court�s reason for \r\nrevocation was his failure to complete SOTP, which was an illegal condition of \r\nprobation.  Relatedly, he asserted that he did not meet the criteria to be a \r\n \r\n11 \r\n \r\nlifetime sexual offender registrant and should have instead been classified as a \r\n20-year registrant.  Ullman also argued under RCr 11.42 that the revocation \r\norder was void on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of \r\ncounsel at his revocation hearing because his counsel did not move to vacate \r\nthe conditions of his probation he asserted were �illegal and void� and failed to \r\nchallenge the �illegal� revocation of his probation.   \r\n In response, the Commonwealth conceded that Ullman could not be \r\nsubjected to a five-year period of postincarceration supervision because it \r\nwould have arguably extended his sentence when his crime of conviction did \r\nnot qualify for postincarceration supervision under KRS 532.043.  Apart from \r\nthat concession, the Commonwealth argued that the remaining challenged \r\nconditions of probation were valid and enforceable and, even assuming \r\narguendo that the conditions were improper, Ullman was barred from \r\nchallenging them.  Relying on Butler v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 78 (Ky. \r\nApp. 2010) and Weigand v. Commonwealth, 397 S.W.2d 780 (Ky. 1965), it \r\nasserted that Ullman was required to challenge any allegedly improper \r\ncondition of probation at the time it was imposed instead of agreeing to the \r\ncondition, receiving the benefit of probation, violating the condition, and then \r\nchallenging its validity only after his probation was revoked.  It also asserted \r\nthat Ullman was correctly ordered to be a lifetime sex offender registrant.",
+                        "In July 2020, after oral argument was held on Ullman�s motion and \r\nadditional briefing was completed, Oldham Circuit Court Judge Karen Conrad, \r\nwho had presided over the case since Ullman�s arraignment, entered an order \r\n \r\n12 \r\n \r\nrecusing herself from further participation in the case.  The order explained \r\nthat Ullman�s revocation hearing attorney, against whom his RCr 11.42 motion \r\nwas leveled, now worked for Judge Conrad as a staff attorney.  Special Judge \r\nCharles Hickman was assigned to the case in her stead.  In his order entered \r\non December 21, 2020, Judge Hickman ruled: \r\n[P]ursuant to CR 60.02(f) �for any reason of an extraordinary \r\nnature justifying relief,� the Court HEREBY VACATES the portion \r\nof the Judgment and Order on Plea of Guilty entered on June 5, \r\n2015, that required Ullman to undergo a sexual offender risk \r\nassessment, submit to HIV testing, complete [an] SOTP (Sexual \r\nOffender Treatment Program), and be subject to a five-year period \r\nof postincarceration supervision, as those requirements are not \r\nauthorized by statute.[12]  The Revocation Order entered on May 24, \r\n2018 is HEREBY VACATED, Ullman shall be immediately \r\nreleased from the custody of the Department of Corrections, \r\nand Ullman is hereby returned to probation for a term of five \r\nyears subject to all his original conditions of probation, except \r\nfor those conditions which have been determined herein to \r\nnot be authorized by statute.  \r\n \r\nThe Court finds that the Oldham Circuit Court correctly \r\ndetermined that Ullman was a lifetime registrant for the Sexual \r\nOffender Registry, and makes no alteration on that matter.  \r\n \r\nJudge Hickman did not address Ullman�s RCr 11.42 argument in the order.  \r\n Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed a motion for additional findings \r\nunder CR 52.02 and to alter, amend or vacate under CR 59.05.  In its motion, \r\nthe Commonwealth asked the court to specifically address its argument under \r\n \r\n12 To clarify, the Commonwealth conceded that Ullman could not be subjected \r\nto a five-year period of post incarceration supervision pursuant to KRS 532.043.  That \r\nportion of his sentence therefore remains vacated.  In addition, as the Appellant in this \r\ncase the Commonwealth does not challenge the circuit court�s ruling to vacate the \r\ncondition that Ullman submit to HIV testing.  We consequently do not address \r\nUllman�s arguments concerning either of those conditions and would further note that \r\nthe circuit court�s decision to revoke Ullman�s probation was not based on a violation \r\nof either of those conditions.   \r\n \r\n13 \r\n \r\nButler and Weigand that Ullman was precluded from challenging his conditions \r\nof probation after revocation occurred.  In doing so, the Commonwealth noted \r\nthat this Court�s opinion in Commonwealth v. Jennings, 613 S.W.3d 14 (Ky. \r\n2020), rendered four days before the circuit court�s December 2020 order was \r\nentered, reaffirmed the holdings in Butler and Weigand, respectively.  In the \r\nalternative, the Commonwealth requested that the court make specific findings \r\nregarding the timeliness of Ullman�s challenge to his probation conditions so \r\nthat the issue could be addressed on appeal.   \r\n On January 14, 2021, the circuit court entered an order denying the \r\nCommonwealth�s motion to alter, amend, or vacate, and granting its motion for \r\nadditional findings by making the following finding: \r\n[T]his Court FINDS that [Butler and Weigand] do not involve illegal \r\nand void sentences imposed in violation of the separation of powers \r\ndoctrine and are, therefore, irrelevant to Mr. Ullman�s claims, and, \r\ninstead, controlling precedents such as [Phon, McClanahan, and \r\nLadriere], hold that a sentence imposed beyond the limitations of \r\nthe legislature as statutorily imposed is unlawful, void, a legal \r\nnullity, an abuse of discretion, void (sic), correctable at any time, \r\nand a defendant�s consent to an unlawful sentence is irrelevant.  As \r\na result, defendant Ullman�s illegal sentences, as addressed in this \r\nCourt�s December 21, 2020 Order, were required to be vacated \r\nwithout regard to the lack of any previous challenge to those \r\nsentences.   \r\n \r\nThe order neither cited nor addressed the Jennings opinion.  Following the \r\nruling, the Commonwealth appealed.   \r\n A split Court of Appeals panel affirmed the circuit court�s December 2020 \r\nand January 2021 orders.  Commonwealth v. Ullman, 2021-CA-0077-MR, 2022 \r\nWL 2182801, at *3 (Ky. App. June 17, 2022).  Like the circuit court, the Court \r\n \r\n14 \r\n \r\nof Appeals summarily dismissed the Commonwealth�s argument that Ullman \r\nwas barred from challenging the conditions of his probation because he failed \r\nto object to them at the time they were imposed.  Id. at *2.  The Commonwealth \r\nagain cited Jennings, Butler, and Weigand, in support of its argument, but the \r\ncourt did not address any of those precedents.  Id.",
+                        "Instead, the entirety of its \r\nanalysis on the issue was as follows: \r\nWe do not agree with the Commonwealth's argument and instead \r\nquote the following in support of our decision: \r\n \r\nWe hold today that a sentence imposed beyond the \r\nlimitations of the legislature as statutorily imposed is \r\nunlawful and void.  This holding is narrow: only a sentence \r\nthat is illegal and was illegal at the time it was imposed \r\nwould fall within this holding.  It is because these \r\nsentences are void and unlawful that CR 60.02 provides \r\nthe proper remedy for relief. \r\n \r\nPhon, 545 S.W.3d at 304 (emphasis added).  The circuit court did \r\nnot abuse its discretion in granting Ullman relief under CR 60.02.  \r\nPhon, 545 S.W.3d at 290. \r\n \r\nUllman, 2022 WL 2182801, at *2.  The Court of Appeals also rejected the \r\nCommonwealth�s assertion that it should be permitted to renegotiate the 2015 \r\nplea agreement because it relied on Ullman�s acceptance of the conditions of \r\nhis probation to its detriment.  Id.  The court�s reasoning was that the plea \r\nagreement was based on both the victim�s partial recantation of her allegations \r\nand Ullman�s willingness to accept conditions that �were not statutorily \r\nauthorized.�  Id.  Further, it concluded, �[t]he conviction itself is not void, only \r\nthe order of revocation based upon violation of the illegally imposed conditions.  \r\n \r\n15 \r\n \r\n[Phon, 545 S.W.3d at 309].�  Id.  The court declined to address Ullman�s RCr \r\n11.42 argument, as his CR 60.02 relief was dispositive.  Id. at *3. \r\n The Commonwealth appealed and now seeks further review from this \r\nCourt.  Additional facts are discussed below as necessary.   \r\nII. ANALYSIS \r\n The Commonwealth asks this Court to reverse the Court of Appeals and \r\nreinstate the circuit court�s May 24, 2018, revocation order.  It argues that the \r\nCourt of Appeals erred by failing to apply the controlling precedents of \r\nJennings, Butler, and Weigand, all of which hold that a defendant may not \r\nchallenge a condition of probation for the first time after revocation and must \r\ninstead object to the condition at the time it is imposed by the sentencing \r\ncourt.  It asserts that Ullman�s challenge to the condition that he complete \r\ncommunity based SOTP was untimely in accordance with those precedents.  \r\nThe Commonwealth further contends that even if Ullman�s challenge had been \r\ntimely, the circuit court acted within its broad discretion under KRS 533.030 to \r\nimpose any �reasonable condition� of probation.  And, that under the facts of \r\nthis case, requiring Ullman to complete SOTP was reasonable.   \r\n In response, Ullman contends that the circuit court and Court of Appeals \r\nwere correct in relying on Phon and McClanahan which both direct that an \r\nillegal sentence is void and therefore may be challenged at any time.  In the \r\nalternative, he maintains that even if the circuit court did act within its \r\ndiscretion in ordering that Ullman complete SOTP, the revocation order must \r\nnevertheless remain vacated because the circuit court failed to make the \r\n \r\n16 \r\n \r\nrequired findings to revoke under KRS 439.3106.  In the event that this Court \r\ndoes not affirm the Court of Appeals, Ullman requests that we remand to the \r\ncircuit court for consideration of his argument that he received ineffective \r\nassistance of counsel during his revocation hearing.    \r\n We hold that Ullman�s challenge to his condition of probation was \r\nuntimely and should not have been considered by the circuit court or Court of \r\nAppeals.  The circuit court�s revocation order is accordingly reinstated.  We \r\nadditionally hold that ordering Ullman to complete SOTP as a condition of his \r\nprobation was not improper.  We decline to address Ullman�s arguments \r\nconcerning the circuit court�s failure to abide by KRS 439.3106, as that alleged \r\nerror was not properly preserved for our review, and he has not requested and \r\nbriefed review for palpable error.  Nevertheless, we agree with his request for \r\nremand so that the circuit court may address his RCr 11.42 claims.  \r\nA. Ullman�s challenge to the probation condition that he complete SOTP \r\nwas untimely.   \r\n \r\n To begin, we reiterate that the circuit court granted Ullman relief based \r\non a motion filed pursuant to CR 60.02.  �Whether to grant relief pursuant to \r\nCR 60.02 is a matter left to the �sound discretion of the [trial] court and the \r\nexercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except for abuse.��  \r\nPhon, 545 S.W3d at 290 (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359, 362 \r\n(Ky. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Brunner, 327 S.W.2d 572, 574 (Ky. 1959)).  \r\nThis Court is therefore without authority to disturb the circuit court�s ruling \r\nunless it was �arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal \r\nprinciples.�  Commonwealth v.",
+                        "English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky.1999). \r\n \r\n17 \r\n \r\n Predictably, we must next address the cases of Weigand, Butler, and \r\nJennings, which the Commonwealth asserts in favor of its argument, and \r\nMcClanahan and Phon, argued by Ullman.  We also felt it necessary to include \r\na discussion of Commonwealth v. Moreland, 681 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 2023). \r\nMoreland was rendered after briefing was concluded in this appeal but is a \r\nmember of the McClanahan and Phon family of case law.   \r\n First, in Weigand, Roland Weigand pled guilty to two counts of writing \r\nbad checks and was sentenced to four years.  397 S.W.2d at 780.  The trial \r\ncourt probated his sentence on the sole condition that he be banished from the \r\ncountry; Weigand was a German national and the legality of his presence in the \r\nU.S. at that time was uncertain.  Id. at 780-81.  Weigand later violated that \r\ncondition, and the trial court revoked his probation.  Id. at 781.   \r\n As Ullman now agues to this Court, Weigand argued on appeal that �the \r\nsubstantive effect of imposing a requirement on appellant �to remain out of the \r\ncountry� rendered the order void ab initio,� and, consequently, �[i]ts revocation \r\nfor a violation of its condition. . .[was] without authority in law.�  Id.  \r\nSignificantly, there was no question whatsoever that Weigand�s condition of \r\nbanishment was not legally imposable, as the Commonwealth conceded that �it \r\n[was] beyond the power of a court to inflict banishment as an alternative to \r\nimprisonment.�  Id.  But this Commonwealth�s then-highest court nevertheless \r\naffirmed the trial court�s order of revocation, holding that  \r\nalthough probation of a sentence may be a benefit conferred upon \r\na convicted criminal for an invalid reason, the order of probation is \r\nseparable from the conviction itself and the judgment entered \r\n \r\n18 \r\n \r\nthereon.  The fact that the probationary order is void does not \r\nrender the conviction and the judgment void.   \r\n \r\nThe probation itself being a nullity there is nothing left for \r\nappellant to do but serve his sentences.  Probation was granted \r\nupon his own motion with the advice of his counsel.  He could \r\nhave appealed from the original order had he disliked the condition \r\nimposed.  Instead he chose to accept the void probation and, \r\nsubsequently, to violate it.  Appellant had the assistance of \r\nadequate counsel who was presumed to have known the \r\nlimitations of the authority of the trial court. \r\n \r\nId. (internal citations omitted).   \r\n In a very similar case, Butler�rendered forty-five years after Weigand�\r\nLakinda Butler pled guilty to possession of marijuana in Fayette County \r\nDistrict Court and was sentenced to one year which the court probated for two \r\nyears on the condition that Butler, a Tennessee resident, be banished from \r\nFayette County except to pay fines.  304 S.W.3d at 79.  Less than one year \r\nlater Butler violated the condition of banishment, and her probation was \r\nrevoked.  Id.  Butler�s appeal to Fayette Circuit Court was unsuccessful, and \r\nthe Court of Appeals granted discretionary review to address whether the \r\ndistrict court�s revocation violated her constitutional right to free travel.13  Id. \r\nat 80.  Relying on Weigand, the Butler Court agreed that the condition of \r\nbanishment was void, as �Kentucky courts have no authority to impose \r\nbanishment on a person as a condition of probation[.]�  Id.  Yet it still upheld \r\nButler�s probation revocation.  Id.  The Court of Appeals reasoned that  \r\n[d]espite the fact that a convicted criminal may be subjected to an \r\nimproper condition of probation, the judgment of conviction is \r\n \r\n13 U.S. Const. amend. XIV � 1.  \r\n \r\n \r\n19 \r\n \r\nseparable and, thus, survives the void probation order.  Weigand, \r\n397 S.W.2d at 781.  Under such circumstances, �[t]he probation \r\nitself being a nullity there is nothing left for [an] appellant to do \r\nbut serve [her sentence].�  Id.  To prevent this occurrence, a person \r\nmust challenge the improper condition at the time it is imposed. \r\nId. \r\n \r\nIn this case, Butler accepted the benefit of an invalid probation \r\norder but violated the order and was sent to county jail.  Although \r\nButler now contends that her constitutional right to freely travel \r\nwithin the United States was violated by the probation condition, \r\nshe was required to make this argument at the time the condition \r\nwas imposed.  Id.  Rather, she accepted the void probation with the \r\nbenefit of avoiding jail and, subsequently, violated it.  Therefore, \r\nButler's service of her twelve-month sentence is not a violation of \r\nher constitutional rights. \r\n \r\nId. \r\n Finally, in Jennings, rendered just four years ago, this Court \r\nunanimously adopted the rationale of Weigand and Butler.  Keith Jennings pled \r\nguilty to failing to register as a sex offender and of being a PFO 1st and was \r\nsentenced to seven and one-half years� imprisonment.  613 S.W.3d at 15.",
+                        "The \r\ntrial court probated his sentence for five years on several conditions, one of \r\nwhich was that he would have �no access to the internet.�  Id.  About one \r\nmonth after his sentencing hearing, Jennings successfully moved to have the \r\ncircuit court modify two conditions of his probation, neither of which \r\nconcerned his ability to access the internet.  Id.  Less than four months later, \r\nJennings violated that condition of his probation by accessing social media \r\nwebsites and the Commonwealth sought revocation of his probation.14  Id. at \r\n16.   \r\n \r\n14 Initially, the Commonwealth asserted as a second grounds to revoke that \r\nJennings had been charged with violating a provision of the Kentucky Sex Offender \r\n \r\n20 \r\n \r\n Following a revocation hearing, the circuit court found that Jennings had \r\nviolated the condition that he not access the internet and that the condition did \r\nnot violate his right to free speech, but it nevertheless declined to revoke his \r\nprobation.  Id.  Instead, the court sentenced him to four months� incarceration, \r\nthe amount of time he had been incarcerated while waiting for the revocation \r\nhearing, as a sanction for his violation.  Id.  Jennings appealed the circuit \r\ncourt�s ruling to the Court of Appeals which vacated and remanded, holding \r\nthat �such a restriction was not narrowly tailored, burdened more First \r\nAmendment rights than necessary to further the government�s interests, and \r\ndid not increase public safety,� and because the restriction was \r\nunconstitutionally vague for various reasons.  Id.   \r\n The Jennings Court�s opinion seemed inclined to agree with Jennings� \r\ncontention that the total internet ban may have violated his First Amendment \r\nRights.  Id. at 16-17.  The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals� holding that \r\n�complete bans on internet use may, in certain extraordinary cases, pass \r\nconstitutional muster,� but cautioned that �[c]omplete bans should be \r\nexceedingly rare.�  Id.  Nevertheless, this Court explicitly declined to address \r\nwhether Jennings� internet ban was appropriate, because his challenge was \r\n \r\nRegistration Act that prohibited access to social media sites.  Id. at 16.  But, while \r\nrevocation was pending, the United States Supreme Court rendered Packingham v. \r\nNorth Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), which had invalidated a state statute that \r\nprohibited registered sex offenders from accessing certain commercial social media \r\nwebsites on First Amendment grounds.  Jennings, 613 S.W.3d at 15.  The \r\nCommonwealth withdrew the pending criminal charge in light of Packingham, making \r\nJennings� violation of the condition that he not access the internet the sole ground \r\nasserted for revoking his probation.  Id. at 16. \r\n \r\n21 \r\n \r\nuntimely.  Id. at 17.  The Court explained that �Jennings did not appeal the \r\nprobation order, did not object to inclusion of the restriction prohibiting \r\ninternet access, and did not otherwise seek to modify that condition although \r\nhe did challenge other terms of the probationary order[,]� and that �[i]t was not \r\nuntil after he had violated the internet restriction that he raised any challenge.�  \r\nId.  It held: \r\n�[A]lthough probation of a sentence may be a benefit conferred \r\nupon a convicted criminal for an invalid reason, the order of \r\nprobation is separable from the conviction itself and the judgment \r\nentered thereon.  The fact that the probationary order is void does \r\nnot render the conviction and the judgment void.�  Weigand v. \r\nCommonwealth, 397 S.W.2d 780, 781 (Ky. 1965) (citations \r\nomitted).  A probationer is required to challenge the offending \r\nprovision at the time it is imposed.  Butler v. Commonwealth, 304 \r\nS.W.3d 78, 80 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing Weigand, 397 S.W.2d at \r\n781). \r\n \r\nJennings does not challenge his conviction but merely contends \r\nthe trial court's total ban on internet access was improper.  \r\nHowever, by accepting the probation, Jennings evaded serving a \r\nlengthy jail sentence, only to face sanctions when he promptly \r\nviolated its terms.  Jennings� failure to challenge the probation \r\nrestriction prohibiting all access to the internet at the time it was \r\nimposed is fatal to his current request for relief.  Id.   \r\n \r\nJennings, 613 S.W.3d at 17.  The Court held that Jennings� constitutional \r\nrights were not violated by the imposition of the four-month jail sentence as a \r\nsanction for violating his probation, and that �[t]he Court of Appeals should not \r\nhave entertained the untimely challenge.�  Id.",
+                        "Additionally, we highlight that KRS 533.020(6) provides that \r\n�[n]otwithstanding the fact that a sentence to probation, probation with an \r\nalternative sentence, or conditional discharge can subsequently be modified or \r\n \r\n22 \r\n \r\nrevoked, a judgment which includes such a sentence shall constitute a final \r\njudgment for the purposes of appeal.�  This lends further credence to the \r\nnotion that the proper means for a probationer to attack an allegedly illegal \r\ncondition of probation is to object to the condition when it is imposed or within \r\na reasonable time thereafter and appeal if the sentencing court does not rule in \r\nhis or her favor.  \r\n In this case, Ullman entered a guilty plea and agreed to a sentence of \r\ntwelve years probated for five years.  As a condition of granting Ullman the \r\nprivilege of probation,15 the circuit court ordered him to, inter alia, complete a \r\ncommunity based SOTP program.  We need not address here whether imposing \r\nSOTP as a condition of probation was appropriate16 because, as in Weigand, \r\nButler, and Jennings, it is immaterial.  The question is not whether the \r\nsentencing court�s challenged condition was improper, as it unquestionably \r\nwas in Weigand and Butler and as it likely was in Jennings.  Instead, the \r\nquestion is whether Ullman challenged that condition at the time it was \r\nimposed.  He did not.  His failure to do so rendered him unable to accept the \r\nalleged invalid condition of probation to avoid serving a twelve-year sentence, \r\nenjoy the privilege of probation for at least two years, violate the condition, \r\nhave his probation revoked based in part on that violation, and then challenge \r\nthe probation condition as illegal for the first time one year and eight months \r\n \r\n15 See Butler, 304 S.W.3d at 80 (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 21, \r\n23 (Ky. App. 1977)).    \r\n16 That argument is instead addressed in Section II(B) of this opinion.   \r\n \r\n23 \r\n \r\nafter his probation was revoked.  The circuit court�s revocation order must \r\naccordingly be reinstated.  \r\n Moreover, even if we were to agree with Ullman that the condition was \r\nimproper, the outcome here would not change.  �The fact that the probationary \r\norder is void does not render the conviction and the judgment void.�  Weigand, \r\n397 S.W.2d at 781.  So even if the probation order was void by virtue of it \r\nrequiring that Ullman complete SOTP, �there is nothing left for appellant to do \r\nbut serve his sentences.�  Id. \r\n McClanahan, Phon, and Moreland do not compel us to conclude \r\notherwise.  In McClanahan, Raymond McClanahan entered into a set of plea \r\nagreements with the Commonwealth to resolve three separate indictments.  \r\n308 S.W.3d at 696.  In exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to recommend a \r\nten-year sentence and objected to McClanahan receiving probation.  Id.  \r\nHowever, pending sentencing, the Commonwealth agreed to release him on his \r\nown recognizance if he agreed to �hammer clauses� in each of his plea \r\nagreements that provided that if he did not return for sentencing, failed to \r\nmake himself available for a presentence investigation, or was charged with a \r\nnew offense, he would serve a much higher sentence than ten-years.  Id.  \r\nMcClanahan later failed to appear for sentencing and the circuit court \r\nsentenced him to thirty-five years.  Id. at 697.   \r\n The McClanahan Court reversed the convictions because the �thirty-five-\r\nyear sentence exceeded the lawful range of punishment established by the \r\nGeneral Assembly� and violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine.  Id. at 698.  \r\n \r\n24 \r\n \r\nIt therefore could not be upheld regardless of whether McClanahan agreed to it.  \r\nId.  The Court reasoned that, in accordance with KRS 532.11017 and KRS \r\n532.08018, the maximum allowable sentence for McClanahan�s convictions was \r\ntwenty years and that the trial court did not have �leeway to impose a greater \r\nsentence.�  Id. at 699.  Moreover, it held that �[a] sentence that lies outside the \r\nstatutory limits is an illegal sentence, and the imposition of an illegal sentence \r\nis inherently an abuse of discretion.�  Id. at 702.  The Court therefore reversed \r\nand remanded to the trial court to allow McClanahan to withdraw his guilty \r\npleas and resume plea negotiations with the Commonwealth.  Id.   \r\n The McClanahan Court relied upon several precedents to support its \r\nholding.  Id. at 698-701.  For example, in Jones v.",
+                        "Commonwealth, 955 S.W.2d \r\n363 (Ky. 1999), which involved a hammer clause similar to the one at issue in \r\n \r\n17 KRS 532.110(1)(c) states: \r\n(1) When multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a \r\ndefendant for more than one (1) crime, including a crime for which a \r\nprevious sentence of probation or conditional discharge has been \r\nrevoked, the multiple sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively \r\nas the court shall determine at the time of sentence, except that:  \r\n(c) The aggregate of consecutive indeterminate terms shall not exceed in \r\nmaximum length the longest extended term which would be authorized \r\nby KRS 532.080 for the highest class of crime for which any of the \r\nsentences is imposed.  In no event shall the aggregate of consecutive \r\nindeterminate terms exceed seventy (70) years[.] \r\n18 KRS 532.080(6)(b) provides: \r\n(6) A person who is found to be a persistent felony offender in the first \r\ndegree shall be sentenced to imprisonment as follows: \r\n(b) If the offense for which he presently stands convicted is a Class C or \r\nClass D felony, a persistent felony offender in the first degree shall be \r\nsentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the maximum of \r\nwhich shall not be less than ten (10) years nor more than twenty (20) \r\nyears. \r\n \r\n25 \r\n \r\nMcClanahan, the Court upheld a plea agreement that provided for six years� \r\nimprisonment unless Jones failed to appear for sentencing, which would result \r\nin the Commonwealth recommending a twenty-year sentence.  McClanahan, \r\n308 S.W.3d at 699.  Jones failed to appear, the twenty-year sentence was \r\nimposed, and the Jones Court upheld the sentence.  Id.  The McClanahan \r\nCourt noted that �[c]ritical to [the Jones] decision was our recognition of the \r\nfact that the sentence of twenty years was within the range established by our \r\nlegislature for Jones�s crimes. . . [t]he same cannot be said for [McClanahan�s] \r\nsentence in this case.�  Id.  The McClanahan Court further noted the cases of \r\nRatliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 2006) and Neace v. \r\nCommonwealth, 978 S.W.2d 319 (Ky. 1998), of which it said: \r\nWe have otherwise consistently recognized that sentences falling \r\noutside the permissible sentencing range cannot stand \r\nuncorrected.  In Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258, 277 \r\n(Ky. 2006), a trial judge failed to note in the final judgment which \r\nof the several multiple sentences totaling 105 years were to be \r\nserved concurrently and which were to be served consecutively.  \r\nWe held, �[i]f the omission was a clerical error and the trial judge \r\nintended to impose a sentence in excess of seventy years, the \r\nsentence violates KRS 532.110(1)(c).  The judgment must be \r\nvacated ... insofar as it imposes a maximum aggregate sentence in \r\nexcess of seventy years.�  In the opposite direction, Neace v. \r\nCommonwealth, 978 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Ky. 1998) holds that the \r\ntrial court properly corrected a jury verdict setting a lower sentence \r\nthan the minimum provided by the statutes.  We recognized that \r\n�[a]ny other result would permit juries to re-write penalty statutes \r\nand effectively nullify the sentencing laws ... [T]he jury's sentencing \r\nrecommendation fell outside the required statutory range, and the \r\ntrial court properly corrected the sentence to conform to the law.� \r\n \r\nMcClanahan, 308 S.W.3d at 700-01.   \r\n \r\n26 \r\n \r\n In the same vein, in Phon, this Court vacated the imposition of life \r\nwithout the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a juvenile after concluding that the \r\nsentence violated our juvenile sentencing statutes.  545 S.W.3d at 299-307. In \r\n1996, sixteen-year-old Sophal Phon entered the home of Khamphao \r\nPhromratsamy and Manyavanh Boonprasert and killed them �execution style.�  \r\nId. at 289.  Phon also shot the victims� daughter in the head, but she survived.  \r\nId.  In an attempt to avoid the death penalty, Phon agreed with his attorney�s \r\nrecommendation to enter a guilty plea and present a robust mitigation case to \r\na jury prior to sentencing.  Id.  Phon further agreed that LWOP, a then-newly \r\navailable punishment in the Commonwealth, be available as a sentencing \r\noption before the jury.  Id.  Following Phon�s sentencing hearing, the jury was \r\npresented with the following sentencing options: �death, LWOP, life without the \r\npossibility of parole for 25 years (LWOP 25), life imprisonment, or twenty years \r\nor more.�  Id.  The jury recommend a sentence of LWOP, and the trial court \r\nimposed it.  Id. \r\n After two attempts to overturn his conviction on other grounds, in June \r\n2013 Phon filed for CR 60.02 relief, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court cases \r\nconcerning the imposition of LWOP for juvenile offenders.  Id. at 290.  Both the \r\ncircuit court and the Court of Appeals denied his request, and this Court \r\ngranted discretionary review to determine whether Phon�s sentence was legally \r\nenforceable.  Id.  After thorough consideration, the Phon Court first concluded \r\nthat the U.S.",
+                        "Constitution�s Eighth Amendment did not categorically forbid \r\njuvenile offenders from being sentenced to LWOP so long as the sentencing \r\n \r\n27 \r\n \r\nprocedures complied with the U.S. Supreme Court�s directives in Miller v. \r\nAlabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 \r\n(2016).  Id. at 291-94.  It further concluded that �the imposition of an LWOP \r\nsentence for a juvenile under certain circumstances does not offend the \r\nKentucky Constitution.�  Id. at 299. \r\n Instead, the Court held that Phon�s LWOP sentence had to be vacated \r\nbecause it violated a Kentucky juvenile sentencing statute: KRS 640.040(1).  Id. \r\nat 299-307.  At the time Phon was sentenced, KRS 640.040 provided that �[a] \r\nyouthful offender convicted of a capital offense regardless of age may be \r\nsentenced to a term of imprisonment appropriate for one who has committed a \r\nClass A felony and may be sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of \r\nparole for twenty-five (25) years.�  Id. at 300.  In the interim, the legislature \r\nadded LWOP to our penal code as an available penalty but �LWOP was never \r\nadded as an enumerated sentence within [KRS 640.040].�  Id.  This Court had \r\npreviously clarified in Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 251 S.W.3d 309 (Ky. 2008), \r\nthat LWOP was not an available sentence for a youthful offender convicted of a \r\ncapital crime pursuant to the plain language of KRS 640.040.  Phon, 545 \r\nS.W.3d at 300.  Instead, the Shepherd Court �interpreted the provision of KRS \r\n640.040(1) to be an exhaustive listing of potential penalties for juveniles \r\nconvicted of a capital offense: all the penalties for Class A felonies (twenty to \r\nfifty years or life) and LWOP 25.�  Id. \r\n After concluding that Shepherd applied to Phon�s case retroactively, this \r\nCourt held that �applying Shepherd to Phon�s case leads to the conclusion that \r\n \r\n28 \r\n \r\nPhon�s sentence was statutorily prohibited[;]� at the time Phon was sentenced \r\n�LWOP 25 would have been the maximum permissible sentence and LWOP was \r\nnot allowable under the juvenile code.�  Id. at 300-01.  Next, relying on \r\nMcClanahan, the Phon Court reversed the Court of Appeals� holding that Phon�s \r\nchallenge was untimely, placing particular emphasis on the separation of \r\npowers violation that occurs when a sentencing court imposes a sentence that \r\nis not authorized by statute.  Id. at 301.  It held: \r\nWhat matters here is the judiciary's involvement.  This Court \r\ncannot go beyond the limits that the legislature has placed upon \r\nthe judicial branch.  Part of this conscription of power is why, even \r\nwhen the issue of illegal sentence is not presented to the trial \r\ncourt, this Court is constrained from affirming a sentence found to \r\nbe contrary to legislative boundaries.  This limitation stems from \r\nthe separation of powers doctrine. �Sections 27 and 28 of the \r\nKentucky Constitution explicitly require separation of powers \r\nbetween the branches of government[.]�  Prater v. Commonwealth, \r\n82 S.W.3d 898, 901 (Ky. 2002).   \r\n \r\n. . .  \r\n \r\nDetermining what should be a crime and setting punishments for \r\nsuch crimes is a legislative function.  �[T]he legislature makes the \r\nlaws, deciding what is a crime and the amount of punishment to \r\nimpose for violations thereof.�  Jones v. Commonwealth, 319 \r\nS.W.3d 295, 299 (Ky. 2010) (citing Wilfong v. Commonwealth, 175 \r\nS.W.3d 84, 92 (Ky. App. 2004) ). . . In contrast, �[t]he judiciary \r\ndetermines guilt and selects or implements a sentence within the \r\nlegislative range.�  Jones, 319 S.W.3d at 299 (citing Wilfong, 175 \r\nS.W.3d at 92).  This Court in McClanahan specifically held that the \r\ntrial court's imposition of a sentence in violation of legislative \r\ndirective was �a violation of the separation of powers doctrine \r\nembodied in Sections 27 and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution, and \r\nis an abuse of discretion.�  McClanahan, 308 S.W.3d at 698. \r\n�Under our Constitution, it is the legislative branch that by statute \r\nestablishes the ranges of punishments for criminal conduct.  It is \r\nerror for a trial jury to disregard the sentencing limits established \r\nby the legislature, and no less erroneous for a trial judge to do so \r\n \r\n29 \r\n \r\nby the acceptance of a plea agreement that disregards those \r\nstatutes.�  Id. at 701. \r\n \r\nPhon, 545 S.W.3d at 302-03.  The separation of powers violation that results \r\nfrom a sentence exceeding the available statutory range is what led the Phon \r\nCourt to conclude, reluctantly, that �the defendant�s timeliness in bringing the \r\nattack is immaterial.�  Id. at 303.  It reasoned that �the timeliness issue is not \r\none of rewarding a defendant for an appeal that is lacking in form or \r\npunctuality[,]� and was instead �about preventing the judiciary from \r\noverstepping its bounds and legislating through inaction or, in the trial court's \r\ncase, action.�  Id.",
+                        "Because of this, the Phon Court held that  \r\na sentence imposed beyond the limitations of the legislature as \r\nstatutorily imposed is unlawful and void.  This holding is narrow: \r\nonly a sentence that is illegal and was illegal at the time it was \r\nimposed would fall within this holding.  It is because these \r\nsentences are void and unlawful that CR 60.02 provides the proper \r\nremedy for relief. \r\n \r\nId. at 304.  Accordingly, because the General Assembly made its policy clear \r\nthrough KRS 640.040 that LWOP is not an appropriate sentence for juvenile \r\noffenders, Phon�s sentence of LWOP was void and therefore unenforceable.  Id. \r\nat 307.  The Court remanded the case for the trial court to correct the unlawful \r\nsentence and to impose a sentence of LWOP 25.19  Id. at 309.   \r\n \r\n19 The Phon Court discussed that under Kentucky case law �even if an illegal \r\nsentence is void, it is void only as to the excess portion of the sentence.�  Id. at 306.  \r\nPhon�s sentencing jury had made an unchallenged fact finding that the \r\nCommonwealth had proven the presence of aggravating factors sufficient to \r\nsubstantiate the imposition of LWOP 25, LWOP, or death.  Id. at 309.  �Thus, the legal \r\naggravated sentences presented to the jury have been diminished to only one: LWOP \r\n25.�  Id.     \r\n \r\n30 \r\n \r\n Last, in Moreland, Daniel Moreland pled guilty in relation to two \r\nindictments.  681 S.W.3d at 104.  Under the terms of the first plea agreement, \r\nhe entered guilty pleas to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and agreed to \r\na ten-year sentence of imprisonment for both counts to be served consecutively \r\nfor a total of twenty years.  Id.  Under the second, he pled guilty to one count of \r\nfirst-degree sexual abuse and agreed to a sentence of ten years� imprisonment.  \r\nId.  Both the Commonwealth�s offer on a plea of guilty and the trial court�s \r\njudgment and sentence on a plea of guilty required that Moreland�s twenty-year \r\nsentence be a �split sentence�: he would serve ten years� imprisonment followed \r\nby ten years of probation after the conclusion of his prison term.  Id.   \r\n After serving his ten-year sentence, Moreland was released from prison \r\nand began supervised probation in accordance with his plea agreement.  Id.  \r\nThree years later, the Commonwealth moved to revoke his probation and \r\nMoreland objected, arguing that sentencing him to probation after serving his \r\nsentence of imprisonment was illegal.  Id.  The trial court ruled it was without \r\nauthority to alter the sentence and revoked his probation, and Moreland \r\nappealed the ruling.  Id.  The Court of Appeals reversed based on its holding \r\nthat the sentencing scheme established by the General Assembly did not allow \r\nfor a period of probation to be served after a sentence of imprisonment.  Id.  \r\nMoreover, citing Phon, the Court of Appeals noted that an illegal sentence may \r\nbe set aside at any time, and a defendant�s consent to an illegal sentence was \r\nirrelevant.  Id.  The Court of Appeals went on to hold that the only remedy was \r\nto release Moreland from custody.  Id. at 105. \r\n \r\n31 \r\n \r\n This Court thereafter granted the Commonwealth�s motion for \r\ndiscretionary review.  Id.  The Moreland Court affirmed the Court of Appeals \r\ninsofar as it held Moreland�s sentence was illegal and void.20  Id. at 106-107.  \r\nThe Court began by noting that because ��probation is a statutory creature, \r\nthis Court is bound by the plain meaning of the probation statutes.��  Id. at 106 \r\n(quoting Conrad v. Evridge, 315 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Ky. 2010)).  As was germane \r\nto Moreland�s case, KRS 533.020(1) mandated that �when a person is convicted \r\nof or pleads guilty to an offense, and �is not sentenced to imprisonment, the \r\ncourt shall place him on probation if he is in need of the supervision, guidance, \r\nassistance, or direction that the probation service can provide[,]�� while KRS \r\n533.020(4) stated that, �[w]hen the offense is a felony, the period of probation \r\n��shall not exceed five (5) years, or the time necessary to complete restitution, \r\nwhichever is longer[.]��  Id.  Based on these statutory directives, the Court held \r\nthat  \r\nthe probation Moreland received violated the statute in that it was \r\nfor ten years, contrary to the five-year limitation declared in KRS \r\n533.020(4).  The trial court also violated the statute by supposing \r\nto begin the probationary period ten years in the future, \r\nconsecutive to a term of imprisonment in state prison for another \r\noffense that Moreland had already been sentenced to serve. . . \r\n[T]he statutory language is unambiguous, that probation is only \r\navailable �[w]hen a person . . . who has entered a plea of guilty to \r\nan offense is not sentenced to imprisonment[.]�  KRS 533.020(1) \r\n(emphasis added).  Moreland was sentenced to imprisonment for \r\n \r\n20 The Court reversed the Court of Appeals� holding that the proper remedy was \r\nto release Moreland from custody.  Id. at 108-09.",
+                        "It instead ruled: �Given that we have \r\nheld this issue is one of illegal sentencing and is a failure to follow the statutory \r\nparameters for when probation is available, we hold the remedy in this case is to \r\nremand for resentencing.�  Id. at 109.   \r\n \r\n32 \r\n \r\ntwenty years and ordered to serve ten years of it.  Therefore, \r\nprobation was not available to him. \r\n \r\n. . . \r\n \r\n[S]ince implementation of incarceration was ordered in Moreland's \r\ncase, the sentence purporting to probate ten years of that prison \r\nsentence is unlawful.  KRS 533.020(1).  The statutory scheme \r\ncreates an �either/or� option, not a �both/and� option. \r\n \r\nMoreland, 681 S.W.3d at 106-07.  Significantly, this Court went on to explicitly \r\nstate that �[o]ur ruling in [Jennings] does not control here.�  Id. at 106.  It \r\nexpounded that in that case �we held a probationer�s challenge to a condition of \r\nprobation ought to have been brought at the time probation was imposed[,]� as \r\n�[a]cceptance of an improper condition of probation is tantamount to waiver.�  \r\nId.  In contrast, �Moreland [was] not challenging any conditions of probation[,]� \r\nbut rather �the imposition of probation in and of itself.�  Id.  And, because \r\nMoreland�s �probation was imposed in conjunction with a term of \r\nimprisonment,� the Court believed that the McClanahan rule allowing an illegal \r\nsentence to be challenged at any time was applicable.  Id. at 106-07.  \r\nAccordingly, it remanded Moreland�s case for resentencing.  Id. at 110.       \r\n Based on the foregoing, our jurisprudence clearly distinguishes between \r\nwhen alleged illegal condition of probation may be challenged and when a \r\nsentence that falls outside the available statutory range may be challenged.  A \r\ncondition of probation must be challenged at the time it is imposed, or within a \r\nreasonable time thereafter, and prior to revocation, whereas an illegal sentence \r\nmay be challenged at any time.  Ullman�s sentence was not a �split sentence� \r\nlike the one at issue in Moreland, and what he challenges is a condition of \r\n \r\n33 \r\n \r\nprobation, not the imposition of probation itself.  He is accordingly entitled to \r\nno relief pursuant to Moreland.  And, he could only seek refuge under the \r\numbrella of McClanahan and Phon if his twelve-year sentence fell outside the \r\npermissible statutory sentence range for his convictions on three counts of \r\ndistributing a matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, enhanced by \r\nhis status as a PFO 2nd.  It does not, nor has he ever claimed that it does.  \r\nDistributing a matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, first offense, \r\nis a Class D felony.21  Class D felonies have an available sentencing range of \r\none to five years� imprisonment,22 which was enhanced to a potential sentence \r\nof five to ten years for each count based on Ullman�s PFO 2nd status.23  The \r\ntrial court could therefore have sentenced Ullman to a maximum of thirty \r\nyears� imprisonment, meaning that his twelve year sentence was well-within \r\nthe available statutory range and was not an illegal and void under \r\nMcClanahan or Phon.  \r\n Accordingly, because Ullman�s challenge to his condition of probation \r\nwas untimely, the circuit court�s decision to grant his motion for relief under \r\nCR 60.02 was a clear abuse of discretion pursuant to Weigand, Butler, and \r\n \r\n21 KRS 531.340(3)(a).   \r\n22 KRS 532.060(2)(d).  \r\n23 KRS 532.080(5) provides that �[a] person who is found to be a persistent \r\nfelony offender in the second degree shall be sentenced to an indeterminate term of \r\nimprisonment pursuant to the sentencing provisions of KRS 532.060(2) for the next \r\nhighest degree than the offense for which convicted.�  Class C felonies carry a potential \r\nsentence of five to ten years.  KRS 532.060(2)(c).   \r\n \r\n34 \r\n \r\nJennings.  We must therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the \r\ncircuit court�s May 2018 revocation order.    \r\nB. A sentencing court may order a defendant not convicted of a �sex \r\ncrime� under KRS 17.500 to complete SOTP as a condition of \r\nprobation if the court deems the condition �reasonably necessary� in \r\naccordance with KRS 533.030.   \r\n \r\n Notwithstanding our holding that the primary issue in this case is \r\nresolved pursuant to the foregoing section of this opinion, this case presents us \r\nwith an opportunity to clarify an important point of law regarding the authority \r\nof our sentencing courts to impose conditions of probation.  We therefore take \r\nthis opportunity to address, as a matter of first impression, whether a trial \r\ncourt�s broad discretion under KRS 533.030 includes the ability to order a \r\ndefendant that has not been convicted of a �sex crime� under KRS 17.500 to \r\ncomplete an SOTP as a condition of probation.  We conclude that it does.",
+                        "KRS 17.500(8)(a) defines a �sex crime,� in relevant part, as �[a] felony \r\noffense defined in KRS Chapter 510, KRS 529.100 or 529.110 involving \r\ncommercial sexual activity, 530.020, 530.064(1)(a), 531.310, 531.320, or \r\n531.335[.]�  Ullman�s convictions for distribution of matter portraying a sexual \r\nperformance by a minor, KRS 531.340, is not included in KRS 17.500�s \r\ndefinition of a �sex crime.�  It is instead considered a �criminal offense against a \r\nminor.�  KRS 17.500(3)(a)(11).  In turn, the statutes governing SOTPs provide \r\nthat �[t]he department [of corrections] shall operate a specialized treatment \r\nprogram for sexual offenders,� and define �sexual offender� as an individual \r\nthat �has been adjudicated guilty of a sex crime, as defined in KRS 17.500[.]�  \r\nConsequently, Ullman argues that the circuit court erred by requiring him to \r\n \r\n35 \r\n \r\ncomplete SOTP as a condition of his probation because he was not convicted of \r\na �sex crime� under KRS 17.500.  We disagree.  \r\n While we do not dispute that Ullman was not convicted of a �sex crime,� \r\nwe hold that the trial court nevertheless did not err by requiring him to \r\ncomplete an SOTP as a condition of his probation.  �In the first place, it is \r\nentirely within the discretion of the trial court whether a defendant shall be \r\ngiven his liberty conditionally.  This is regarded as a privilege or a �species of \r\ngrace extended to a convicted criminal� for his welfare and the welfare of \r\norganized society.��  Ridley v. Commonwealth, 287 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Ky. 1956) \r\n(quoting Darden v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.2d 1031, 1033 (Ky. 1939)�.  See \r\nalso Burke v. Commonwealth, 506 S.W.3d 307, 314 (Ky. 2016) (noting �the \r\ngranting of probation is wholly within the discretion of the trial court.).�  This \r\ndiscretion has been codified by the General Assembly via KRS 533.030 which \r\nstates, in pertinent part:  \r\n(1) The conditions of probation and conditional discharge shall \r\nbe such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably \r\nnecessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding \r\nlife or to assist him or her to do so.  The court shall provide as \r\nan explicit condition of every sentence to probation or conditional \r\ndischarge that the defendant not commit another offense during \r\nthe period for which the sentence remains subject to revocation. \r\n \r\n(2) When imposing a sentence of probation or conditional \r\ndischarge, the court may, in addition to any other reasonable \r\ncondition, require that the defendant. . . \r\n \r\n(emphasis added).  The statute then provides a list of twelve potential \r\nconditions of probation that may be imposed by the court.  The �Kentucky \r\n \r\n36 \r\n \r\nCrime Commission/LRC Commentary� that accompanies KRS 533.030 clarifies \r\nthat  \r\nIt is not intended that the list [in subsection (2)] be exhaustive or \r\nthat it limit in any way the discretion of a trial court in \r\ntailoring the conditions of probation or conditional discharge to \r\nthe rehabilitative needs of individual offenders. . . The only \r\nlimitation on the trial judges with respect to such conditions is \r\ncontained in subsection (1).  This provision requires that \r\nconditions imposed upon a convicted offender be considered \r\n�reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a \r\nlaw-abiding life or to assist him to do so.�   \r\n \r\n(Emphasis added).  Accordingly, by statute, a sentencing court has the \r\ndiscretion to impose any reasonable condition of probation that it deems \r\nreasonably necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life \r\nor that will assist him or her in doing so.    \r\n Here, the circuit court was presented with a defendant in his thirties \r\nwho, without question, had multiple sexually explicit images of a fourteen-year-\r\nold girl on his cellphone24 and pled guilty to distribution of a matter portraying \r\na sexual performance by a minor.  Even if his crimes were not �sex crimes� \r\nunder KRS 17.500, they were indisputably of a sexual nature.  Moreover, the \r\ncircuit court was advised by the Department of Corrections, via Ullman�s SORA \r\nevaluation, that in order to ensure that Ullman �[maintains] an offense-free \r\nlifestyle. . . and to minimize his chances of acting out again� he should \r\n \r\n24 Despite Ullman�s counsel�s attempt to victim blame during the oral \r\narguments held in this case by proclaiming that Jane sent the photographs to Ullman, \r\nthe fact remains that Ullman is an adult, the victim is a child, and having those \r\nimages is a felony offense.   \r\n \r\n37 \r\n \r\ncomplete a treatment program for sexual offenders, and that he was unlikely to \r\ndo so in the absence of a court order.",
+                        "Furthermore, while the statutes that govern SOTP�KRS 197.400   \r\nthrough KRS 197.440�direct that the Department of Corrections �shall \r\noperate a specialized treatment program for sexual offenders,�25 i.e., \r\nindividuals convicted of a �sex crime� under KRS 17.500,26 nothing in those \r\nstatutes explicitly precludes individuals not convicted of a �sex crime� from \r\nparticipating in an SOTP.  Likewise, KRS 532.045, which mandates that \r\ncompletion of a community based SOTP be ordered as a condition of probation \r\nfor defendants convicted of a sex crime,27 does not explicitly state that those \r\nnot convicted of a sex crime cannot be ordered to complete SOTP.  Put simply, \r\njust because SOTP is mandated for certain offenses does not mean it is \r\nprecluded for others.  This is a sensible conclusion because SOTP is not a \r\npunishment, it is a rehabilitative treatment program that endeavors to ensure \r\nthat sex offenders do not commit additional sexual offenses.  If the General \r\nAssembly believes in the efficacy of SOTP to such an extent that it has \r\nmandated it for certain offenses, why then would we preclude participation by \r\na defendant who may benefit from it simply because they were not convicted of \r\n \r\n25 KRS 197.400.  \r\n26 KRS 197.410. \r\n27 KRS 532.045(4) (�If the court grants probation or conditional discharge, the \r\noffender shall be required, as a condition of probation or conditional discharge, to \r\nsuccessfully complete a community-based sexual offender treatment program operated \r\nor approved by the Department of Corrections or the Sex Offender Risk Assessment \r\nAdvisory Board.�).   \r\n \r\n38 \r\n \r\na crime for which it is mandated?  We therefore hold that a sentencing court \r\nmay impose completion of SOTP as a condition of probation for defendants not \r\nconvicted of a �sex crime� under KRS 17.500 if the court finds that the \r\ncondition is reasonable and is reasonably necessary to ensure that the \r\ndefendant will lead a law-abiding life or that it will assist him or her in doing \r\nso. \r\n There are two cases that give this Court pause in coming to this \r\nconclusion: Ladriere, supra, and Miller v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 801 (Ky. \r\n2013).  They accordingly warrant discussion.  In Ladriere, Robert Ladriere \r\nwatched a ten-year old girl use the bathroom in a restroom stall of a county \r\nlibrary.  329 S.W.3d at 279.  Ladriere entered the girl�s stall before she could \r\nleave and backed her against the wall but fled when the girl screamed.  Id. at \r\n279-80.  He eventually entered a guilty plea to kidnapping and was sentenced \r\nto twenty years� imprisonment.  Id. at 280.  Although the sentencing court \r\nacknowledged that kidnapping was not a sex offense per se, it further imposed \r\nseveral conditions on his sentence based on his duty to register as a sex \r\noffender, including that he complete SOTP.  Id.   \r\n The Ladriere Court, reviewing for palpable error, first held that Ladriere \r\ncould not be subjected to a five-year period of conditional discharge under KRS \r\n532.043 because kidnapping is not listed as a qualifying offense.  Id. at 282.  It \r\nthen held that he could not be required to complete SOTP, and the entirety of \r\nits analysis was as follows: \r\n \r\n39 \r\n \r\nFor the same reasons, ordering Ladriere to complete a Sex Offender \r\nTreatment Program (SOTP) was not statutorily authorized.  SOTP is \r\na treatment program for sexual offenders.  Participation in the \r\nprogram may be ordered when the sentencing court, department \r\nofficials, or both determine that a sexual offender may have a \r\nmental, emotional, or behavioral disorder and is likely to benefit \r\nfrom the program.  KRS 197.010(4).  However, �sexual offender� as \r\nused in KRS Chapter 197 is a person who has committed a �sex \r\ncrime� as defined by KRS 17.500. KRS 197.410(1).  Given that \r\nLadriere did not commit an offense within the purview of the \r\nstatute's definition of �sex crime,� it stands to reason that he is not \r\na �sexual offender� for purposes of the SOTP provisions either. \r\n \r\nId.  This Court vacated the portions of Ladiere�s sentencing order that imposed \r\nthe five-year period of conditional discharge and ordered him to complete \r\nSOTP.28  Id.  at 283.   \r\n But, as Ladriere was not granted probation and was instead required to \r\ncomplete SOTP as part of his sentence, the trial court�s broad discretion under \r\nKRS 533.030 was not implicated or considered.  Further, as explained supra, \r\nthis Court does not believe it is prudent to bar defendants that would benefit \r\nfrom SOTP from participation simply because they were not convicted of an \r\noffense enumerated in KRS 17.500.  This, likewise, was not explicitly \r\nconsidered by the Ladriere Court.  \r\n Next, in Miller, Elmer Miller pled guilty to criminal attempt to commit \r\nfirst-degree unlawful transaction with a minor, victim over the age of sixteen, a \r\nClass A misdemeanor.  391 S.W.3d at 803.  He was sentenced to one year, \r\nwhich the court probated for two years.  Id.",
+                        "As a condition of probation, the \r\n \r\n28 It also vacated the requirement that he submit to HIV testing based on the \r\nsame reasoning.  Id. at 283. \r\n \r\n40 \r\n \r\ncourt ordered him to �[a]ttend any counseling recommended by probation and \r\nparole.�  Id.  In turn, probation and parole recommended that Miller enroll in \r\nSOTP, and he did so.  Id.  However, SOTP typically took three years to \r\ncomplete, and the length of Miller�s probation was only two years.  Id.  Shortly \r\nbefore Miller�s probationary period expired, his parole officer informed the court \r\nthat Miller would be unable to complete the program before his probation \r\nexpired.  Id.  The court ordered briefing on the issue of whether his \r\nprobationary period could be extended beyond the two-year limit for \r\nmisdemeanor offenses provided by KRS 533.020(4), and ultimately found that \r\nit could under KRS 532.045(4), which required the completion of SOTP as a \r\nprobation condition for sex crimes.  Id.   \r\n The Miller Court vacated the circuit court�s ruling and ordered that Miller \r\nbe discharged from probation.  Id. at 809.  The Court first held that the circuit \r\ncourt could not extend Miller�s probation based on the plain language of KRS \r\n533.020(4).  Id. at 805.  It further disagreed with the circuit court�s conclusion \r\nthat the two-year probation time limit in KRS 533.020(4) was �trumped� by \r\nKRS 532.045�s requirement that SOTP be completed because Miller was not \r\nconvicted of a �sex crime� under KRS 17.500 and was therefore not �statutorily \r\nrequired� to complete SOTP.  Id.  More importantly, though, the Court \r\nconcluded that Miller was never ordered to complete SOTP as a condition of his \r\nprobation.  Id. at 808.  Rather, �the trial court's probation order. . . conditioned \r\nMiller's probation on his �[a]ttend[ing] any counseling recommended by \r\nprobation and parole[]�� and said nothing about completing SOTP.  Id.  Rather, \r\n \r\n41 \r\n \r\n�[t]hat condition only appeared when Probation and Parole recommended that \r\nMiller complete sex offender treatment, which Probation and Parole believed, \r\nincorrectly, was required by statute.�  Id.  Accordingly, the Court held that \r\nMiller did not violate the imposed probation condition that he attend �any \r\ncounseling recommended by probation and parole.�  Id.  His probation could \r\ntherefore not be extended absent his consent, which he did not provide.  Id. at \r\n809. \r\n Miller is distinguishable from this case because Miller was never ordered \r\nto complete SOTP as a condition of his probation.  And, as in Ladriere, the \r\nMiller Court did not consider the sentencing Court�s discretion under KRS \r\n533.030.  Though, even if the court had imposed SOTP, because Miller�s \r\nconviction was for a misdemeanor, and he therefore could not complete SOTP \r\nbefore the expiration of his probationary period, we would agree that it could \r\nnot have been considered a �reasonable condition� by the sentencing court.   \r\n Based on the foregoing, we hereby hold that under KRS 533.030, a \r\nsentencing court may impose SOTP as a condition of probation if the court \r\nfinds it is reasonable condition within the facts of the case before it and that it \r\nis reasonably necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life \r\nor that it will assist him in doing so.   \r\nC. Ullman�s assertion that the circuit court�s revocation order failed to \r\ncomply with KRS 439.3106 was not properly preserved for review. \r\n \r\n Ullman further asserts that, in the event that we reinstate the circuit \r\ncourt�s revocation order based on the Commonwealth�s argument that his \r\n \r\n42 \r\n \r\nchallenge was untimely, as we do in Section II(A) of this opinion, we must \r\nnevertheless uphold the circuit court�s later decision to vacate the revocation \r\norder because the circuit court did not make fact findings sufficient under KRS \r\n439.3106 and Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773 (Ky. 2014) to \r\nsupport the revocation decision.  Specifically, Ullman argues that the circuit \r\ncourt failed to make any finding that Ullman�s failure to comply with the \r\nconditions of his probation constituted a significant risk to his victim or the \r\ncommunity at large and that he could not be appropriately managed in the \r\ncommunity.  KRS 439.3106(1)(a); Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780 (holding �that \r\nKRS 439.3106(1) requires trial courts to consider whether a probationer's \r\nfailure to abide by a condition of supervision constitutes a significant risk to \r\nprior victims or the community at large, and whether the probationer cannot be \r\nmanaged in the community before probation may be revoked.�). \r\n However, Ullman failed to challenge this alleged error before the circuit \r\ncourt, and it is therefore not preserved for our review.  Accord Lainhart v. \r\nCommonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 234, 237 (Ky. App. 2017).",
+                        "And, nowhere in \r\nUllman�s brief to this Court does he request review for palpable error pursuant \r\nto RCr 10.26.29  �Absent extreme circumstances amounting to a substantial \r\nmiscarriage of justice, an appellate court will not engage in palpable error \r\n \r\n29 RCr 10.26 provides that �[a] palpable error which affects the substantial \r\nrights of a party may be considered by the court on motion for a new trial or by an \r\nappellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, \r\nand appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice \r\nhas resulted from the error.� \r\n \r\n43 \r\n \r\nreview pursuant to RCr 10.26 unless such a request is made and briefed by the \r\nappellant.�  Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 251 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Ky. 2008) \r\n(citing Thomas v. Commonwealth, 153 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Ky.2004); Bray v. \r\nCommonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 741, 752 (Ky.2005), overruled on other grounds by \r\nPadgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2010)).      \r\n We do not believe the circumstances presented by this case constitute \r\nextreme circumstances amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice and \r\ntherefore decline to address Ullman�s argument.  The Division of Probation and \r\nParole first sought revocation of Ullman�s probation in March 2017 for several \r\nviolations of his probation conditions, namely: evading a drug screen and \r\nfailing to report to his probation officer as directed the following day; another \r\nfailure to report to his probation officer thereafter; failing a drug screen which \r\nshowed the presence of Lortab and methamphetamine; and for being \r\nterminated from his SOTP for failing a drug screen.   \r\n The circuit court nevertheless gave Ullman a second chance to comply \r\nwith the conditions of his probation, but by the following March the Division of \r\nProbation and Parole was again seeking revocation, this time for even more \r\nviolations, specifically: being terminated from his outpatient substance use \r\ndisorder treatment program for excessive absences and missed drug screens;  \r\nfailing to report to his probation officer as directed on six separate occasions; \r\nfailing a drug screen which showed the presence of Oxycodone; being \r\ndischarged from his substance use disorder treatment class for excessive \r\n \r\n44 \r\n \r\nabsences; and being terminated from his SOTP for a second time based on six \r\ndistinct violations of that program�s contract.   \r\n Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the circumstances of \r\nthis case warrant sua sponte review for palpable error.  \r\nD. Ullman�s RCr 11.42 claims must be remanded for consideration by a \r\nfact-finding court.  \r\n \r\n Ullman�s final argument is that his revocation hearing counsel�s \r\nrepresentation constituted prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel \r\npursuant to RCr 11.42.  He faults his revocation hearing counsel for failing to \r\nchallenge the conditions of his probation during his revocation hearing and for \r\nfailing to object to and/or appeal the circuit court�s failure to make the \r\nrequired findings under KRS 439.3106 prior to revoking his probation.  He \r\ncontends that if this Court reverses the Court of Appeals and reinstates the \r\ncircuit court�s revocation order, we should further order that the case be \r\nremanded so that a fact-finding court may address his RCr 11.42 arguments in \r\nthe first instance.  As noted, both the circuit court and the Court of Appeals \r\nforewent addressing Ullman�s RCr 11.42 arguments on the basis that his CR \r\n60.02 relief was dispositive.  As we have already ruled in Section II(A) of this \r\nOpinion that Ullman�s challenge to the conditions of his probation were \r\nuntimely, that issue need not be considered.  Nevertheless, we agree that \r\nremanding to allow the circuit court to address his argument regarding his \r\ncounsel�s failure to challenge the circuit court�s failure to make the required \r\nfindings under KRS 439.3106 prior to revocation is warranted.     \r\n  \r\n \r\n45 \r\n \r\nIII. CONCLUSION  \r\n Based on the foregoing, we reverse the Court of Appeals and hereby \r\nreinstate the circuit court�s May 24, 2018, revocation order.  We further \r\nremand this case to the circuit court for consideration of Ullman�s RCr 11.42 \r\narguments.  \r\n VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert and Nickell, JJ., sitting.  \r\n \r\nVanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, and Nickell, JJ., concur.  Keller, J.,  \r\n \r\nconcurs in result only.  Thompson, J., not sitting.  \r\n  \r\n  \r\nCOUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: \r\n \r\nRussell Coleman  \r\nAttorney General of Kentucky  \r\n \r\nJacob Michael Abrahamson \r\nAssistant Attorney General  \r\n \r\nBryan Darwin Morrow \r\nAssistant Attorney General  \r\n \r\nCourtney J. Hightower \r\nAssistant Attorney General  \r\n \r\n \r\nCOUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: \r\n \r\nJoseph V. Aprile, II \r\nLynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman, P.S.C."
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2896518",
+                    "parentID": "af9a2e8572d5fd3b112911ab324ce2cb2ece2c5941c686bfee7a97d6e7b1bce0",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "DISPOSITION - OPINION OF THE COURT BY A JUSTICE",
+                    "parentSubtype": "REVERSING AND REINSTATING",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-04-18T09:03:02.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "cb4f7915904a56bbc8c79881536c971dc05312d46215a2aa5005e48d5a4b7836",
+                        "caseNumber": "2022-SC-0293",
+                        "caseStatus": "PETITION FOR REHEARING",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-05-08T18:40:45.000+0000",
+                        "closed": false,
+                        "shortTitle": "COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY\r\nV.\r\nRICKY D. ULLMAN, JR.",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "CRIMINAL",
+                        "caseClassification": "DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - CRIMINAL - REGULAR CRIMINAL (GRANTED)",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2022-07-18T04:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                        "courtLevel": "Supreme Court",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "id": "e0630048e6b2c218eb0c3ce3db883306cf7cb4225736d86f13695e8786c2a05b",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2022-SC-0459",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "AFFIRMING",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING",
+                "docketEntryType": "DISPOSITION - MEMORANDUM OPINION",
+                "docketEntryID": "e0630048e6b2c218eb0c3ce3db883306cf7cb4225736d86f13695e8786c2a05b",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "2ae5f5d32db53e3443fff9b929235240525611fa613339dc590e2e0f03e43473",
+                "filedDate": "2024-04-18T10:02:30.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3.0,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119510",
+                    "documentID": "43d8297696dfb46ee0975cf4c68d398673dc1c3fd36d442a1480109615a598e9",
+                    "documentName": "MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "IMPORTANT NOTICE \r\nNOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION \r\nTHIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED �NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.�  \r\nPURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE  \r\nPROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D),  THIS \r\nOPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE \r\nCITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER \r\nCASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,  \r\nUNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, \r\nRENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR \r\nCONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED \r\nOPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE  \r\nBEFORE THE COURT.  OPINIONS CITED FOR \r\nCONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN \r\nUNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A \r\nCOPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG \r\nWITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO \r\nTHE  ACTION. \r\n  RENDERED:  APRIL 18, 2024 \r\n  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED \r\nSupreme Court of Kentucky \r\n \r\n    \r\n2022-SC-0459-MR \r\n \r\nDONAVON I. SMITH  APPELLANT  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nV.  \r\nON APPEAL FROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE JOE W. HENDRICKS, JR., JUDGE \r\nNO. 22-CR-00023 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY  APPELLEE  \r\n \r\n \r\nMEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT \r\n \r\nAFFIRMING  \r\n \r\nDonovan I. Smith was convicted by a Todd County jury for failing to \r\nregister as a sexual offender and being a first-degree persistent felony offender \r\n(PFO I).  He received a total sentence of twenty years� imprisonment and \r\nappeals to this Court as a matter of right.1  Smith argues:  (1) the trial court \r\nerred by failing to instruct the jury on entrapment; and (2) the Commonwealth \r\ncommitted flagrant misconduct by misstating the law during the penalty phase.  \r\nWe affirm. \r\nIn Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Donovan I. Smith, No. 21-CR-00010, \r\n(Todd Cir. Ct. filed Mar.9, 2021), Smith entered a guilty plea to the amended \r\ncharges of second-degree unlawful transaction with a minor and second-degree \r\n \r\n1 KY. CONST. � 110(2)(b). \r\n2 \r\n \r\nsexual abuse, offenses that required him to register with the Kentucky Sex \r\nOffender Registry.  At final sentencing on January 5, 2022, the trial court \r\nprobated Smith�s five-year sentence.  At this time, Smith was informed of his \r\nduty to register.  He was instructed to meet with the probation representative \r\nin the courtroom to sign the probation order.  Smith was also provided a form \r\noutlining his duty to register.  He signed the form and was instructed to call his \r\nprobation officer, Megan Goss, within a few days to set up an appointment. \r\nOn January 11, 2022, Goss was informed that Smith had been added to \r\nher caseload.  She called Smith the same day, and he came to her office later \r\nthat afternoon.  During the intake process for his registration, Smith told Goss \r\nhe intended to live in Tennessee.  At that time, Goss was under the mistaken \r\nimpression that she would have to transfer Smith to Tennessee for supervision \r\nthrough the Interstate Compact Offender Tracking System.  After affirming the \r\nexchange of correct contact information, Goss told Smith to await further \r\ninstructions regarding his registration in Tennessee.  \r\nTwo days later, Goss learned from the Kentucky State Police that Smith \r\nwas required to register in Kentucky, and that she needed to register him as \r\nsoon as possible.  Goss attempted to call Smith, but he did not answer.  Smith \r\ntexted Goss in reply later that day and asked to talk with her.  Following a \r\nsubsequent phone conversation, Smith agreed to return to Goss�s office before \r\nnoon on January 18, 2022, to complete his registration.  \r\nSmith did not appear at Goss�s office on the scheduled date, or at any \r\ntime thereafter.  Goss called Smith, but he did not answer, and she was unable \r\n3 \r\n \r\nto leave a message.  The next day, Goss called Smith at his place of \r\nemployment, but learned he no longer worked there.  Based on his lack of \r\ncontact, Goss applied for a warrant to arrest Smith. \r\nOn January 31, 2022, Smith texted Goss.  He claimed he had been \r\n�undergoing a lot� and had been recovering from COVID-19.  Smith told Goss \r\nhe was intending to purchase a home in Kentucky after he received his tax \r\nrefund.  He further indicated his awareness of a court date on February 16, \r\n2022. \r\nAfter receiving these text messages, Goss called Smith and he answered.  \r\nGoss instructed Smith to turn himself in at the Todd County jail, but he \r\nrefused, stating that he would explain himself at the court date.  Smith also \r\nrefused to give Goss his current address or any other information about his \r\nliving situation.  He did not make any further contact with Goss prior to his \r\ncourt date.  Smith was arrested on the day of the court date pursuant to the \r\noutstanding warrant. \r\nSmith was indicted for failing to register as a sex offender and PFO I.  \r\nFollowing a jury trial, he was convicted on both charges.  He received a \r\nsentence of five years� imprisonment for failing to register, which the PFO I \r\nconviction enhanced to a total of twenty years� imprisonment.",
+                        "This appeal \r\nfollowed. \r\nSmith first argues the trial court erred by denying his request for an \r\ninstruction on the defense of entrapment.  Specifically, he contends Goss�s \r\nfailure to register him when she had the opportunity raised a jury issue \r\n4 \r\n \r\nregarding her intent to induce him into committing a criminal act.  We \r\ndisagree. \r\nRCr2 9.54(1) imposes a duty upon the trial court �to instruct the jury in \r\nwriting on the law of the case[.]�  The law of the case encompasses �every state \r\nof the case deducible or supported to any extent by the testimony[,]� including \r\nlesser-included offenses and any available affirmative defenses.  Hargroves v. \r\nCommonwealth, 615 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Ky. 2021) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, \r\n995 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Ky. 1999).  Thus, �[t]he jury instructions must be \r\ncomplete and the defendant has a right to have every issue of fact raised by the \r\nevidence and material to his defense submitted to the jury on proper \r\ninstructions.�  Hayes v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Ky. 1993).  We \r\nreview �the trial court�s decision to instruct on a specific claim for an abuse of \r\ndiscretion[.]�  Hargroves, 615 S.W.3d at 6.  An abuse of discretion occurs when \r\nthe trial court �acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly, or takes action \r\n�unsupported by sound legal principles.��  Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. \r\nEnglish, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)).       \r\nKRS 505.010 sets forth the defense of entrapment: \r\n(1) A person is not guilty of an offense arising out of proscribed \r\nconduct when: \r\n \r\n(a) He was induced or encouraged to engage in that conduct by a \r\npublic servant or by a person acting in cooperation with a public \r\nservant seeking to obtain evidence against him for the purpose of \r\ncriminal prosecution; and \r\n \r\n \r\n2 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.  \r\n5 \r\n \r\n(b) At the time of the inducement or encouragement, he was not \r\notherwise disposed to engage in such conduct. \r\n \r\n(2) The relief afforded by subsection (1) is unavailable when: \r\n \r\n(a) The public servant or the person acting in cooperation with a \r\npublic servant merely affords the defendant an opportunity to \r\ncommit an offense; or \r\n \r\n(b) The offense charged has physical injury or the threat of physical \r\ninjury as one (1) of its elements and the prosecution is based on \r\nconduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other than \r\nthe person perpetrating the entrapment. \r\n \r\n(3) The relief provided a defendant by subsection (1) is a defense. \r\n \r\nWe have previously noted �[t]he law surrounding entrapment is well-defined in \r\nKentucky, having been amply set forth by both statutory and case law.�  \r\nMorrow v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 206, 209 (Ky. 2009).  A defendant must \r\nsatisfy both subsections of KRS 505.010(1), inducement and the absence of \r\npredisposition, to establish entitlement to an instruction on the defense of \r\nentrapment.  Id.  \r\nHere, Smith tendered a proposed instruction on entrapment, which the \r\ntrial court denied.  During the discussion before the trial court, Smith�s trial \r\ncounsel candidly admitted the evidence of entrapment �didn�t really develop.�  \r\nNevertheless, Smith maintained he was entitled to the instruction because \r\nGoss�s initial failure to register him subjected him to arrest because the time \r\nfor registration had expired by the time Goss instructed him to return for \r\ncompletion of the registration process. \r\nThe evidence of record does not support Smith�s arguments.  There is no \r\nindication Goss intended to induce Smith into failing to register for the purpose \r\n6 \r\n \r\nof a later criminal prosecution.  On the contrary, Goss�s initial delay in \r\nregistering Smith was explained by her mistaken belief he was required to \r\nregister in Tennessee.  After this misapprehension was corrected, Goss made \r\nevery reasonable effort to ensure Smith�s compliance with the registration \r\nrequirements.  Smith evaded and rebuffed these attempts at every turn.  We \r\ncannot conclude the evidence supported a finding that Goss induced Smith \r\ninto failing to register.  Further, even assuming inducement, Goss�s subjective \r\nintent has no bearing on Smith�s criminal predisposition to commit the charged \r\noffense, which was amply demonstrated by the evidence.  Because Smith \r\ncannot satisfy both elements of the entrapment defense, his claim must fail.  \r\nTherefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested \r\ninstruction on entrapment.  \r\nSmith next argues the Commonwealth committed flagrant misconduct \r\nduring the penalty phase by misstating the law pertaining to the possibility of \r\nearly release from imprisonment.  Specifically, he contends the following \r\nstatements were improper and prejudicial: \r\n� [Y]ou will see that even a twenty-year sentence can end up being more \r\nlike ten at the most if he doesn�t make parole.",
+                        "� When we hear fifteen to twenty years, that�s not, for what is considered a \r\nnonviolent offense, that�s not actually fifteen to twenty years. \r\n \r\n� [E]ven if somebody doesn�t make parole, even if they are told they have to \r\nserve out, that also doesn�t mean they serve an actual fifteen to twenty \r\nyears if you give somewhere in that range. \r\n \r\n7 \r\n \r\nWhile we agree the Commonwealth�s statement that a twenty-year sentence \r\ncould end up being ten years at the most was improper, we cannot conclude \r\nthe misstatement amounted to palpable error. \r\nProsecutorial misconduct has been defined as an �improper or illegal act \r\n. . . involving an attempt to . . . persuade the jury to . . . assess an unjustified \r\npunishment.�  Noakes v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 116, 122 (Ky. 2011) \r\n(citing Black�s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)).  Admittedly, we have previously \r\nheld a prosecutor�s misstatement of law concerning parole eligibility may rise to \r\nthe level of palpable error.  Beard v. Commonwealth, 581 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Ky. \r\n2019).  Kentucky law demands our prosecutors adhere to the highest \r\nstandards of competence and integrity.  Niemeyer v. Commonwealth, 533 \r\nS.W.2d 218, 222 (Ky. 1976), overruled on other grounds by Blake v. \r\nCommonwealth, 646 S.W.2d 718 (Ky. 1983).  Indeed, �[n]o one except for the \r\njudge himself is under a stricter obligation to see that every defendant receives \r\na fair trial, a trial in accordance with the law, which means the law as laid \r\ndown by the duly constituted authorities, and not as the prosecuting attorney \r\nmay think it ought to be.�  Id.   \r\nAt the same time, we have also recognized �a misstatement [of law] alone, \r\nespecially when it is not objected to at trial, does not automatically require \r\nreversal.�  Matheny v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599, 606 (Ky. 2006); see \r\nalso Barrett v. Commonwealth, 677 S.W.3d 326, 335 (Ky. 2023) (holding \r\nmisstatement concerning presumption of innocence did not amount to flagrant \r\nmisconduct).  Specifically, in Ray v. Commonwealth, 611 S.W.3d 250, 270 (Ky. \r\n8 \r\n \r\n2020), we concluded a prosecutor�s misstatement that a defendant would have \r\nto serve four more years than actually required to become parole eligible did \r\nnot amount to palpable error.   \r\nThe four-part test for flagrant prosecutorial misconduct is well-\r\nestablished:  �(1) whether the remarks tended to mislead the jury or to \r\nprejudice the accused; (2) whether they were isolated or extensive; (3) whether \r\nthey were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury; and (4) the \r\nstrength of the evidence against the accused.�  Dickerson v. Commonwealth, \r\n485 S.W.3d 310, 329 (Ky. 2016) (quoting Mayo v. Commonwealth, 322 S.W.3d \r\n41, 56 (Ky. 2010)).  Additionally, when addressing issues raised during closing \r\nargument in the penalty phase,  \r\n[a]n appellate court�s review of alleged error to determine whether it \r\nresulted in �manifest injustice� necessarily must begin with an \r\nexamination of both the amount of punishment fixed by the verdict \r\nand the weight of evidence supporting that punishment.  Other \r\nrelevant factors, however, include whether the Commonwealth�s \r\nstatements are supported by facts in the record and whether the \r\nallegedly improper statements appeared to rebut arguments raised \r\nby defense counsel.  Finally, we must always consider these \r\nclosing arguments �as a whole� and keep in mind the wide latitude \r\nwe allow parties during closing arguments. \r\n \r\nYoung v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 66, 74-75 (Ky. 2000) (footnotes omitted).  \r\nWhen a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved, this Court �will \r\nreverse only if the conduct was both flagrant and constitutes palpable error \r\nresulting in manifest injustice.�  Barrett, 677 S.W.3d at 333 (emphasis added).    \r\nHere, the unique and somewhat paradoxical procedure of combining the \r\nopening statement with closing argument was undertaken by agreement of the \r\n9 \r\n \r\nparties.3  At the outset of the penalty phase, the Commonwealth informed the \r\ntrial court that Smith had requested the parties to make an opening statement \r\nand waive closing argument.  The Commonwealth agreed, provided it would be \r\npermitted leeway to make its argument and sentencing recommendation.  \r\nSmith�s counsel stated, �I will not be objecting to any argument.�   \r\nThe Commonwealth�s hybrid opening-closing argument lasted \r\napproximately four minutes.  The primary focus of the argument involved an \r\nexplanation of the PFO charge and predicate offenses in addition to Smith�s \r\ngeneral criminal history.4  The Commonwealth emphasized the nature and \r\nextent of the prior offenses, including a felony offense committed while on \r\nprobation, and  \r\nthat Mr.",
+                        "Smith has shown that he cannot be managed in the \r\ncommunity, when he had an opportunity the first thing he started \r\ndoing was falling off the radar, trying to explain his way out of it, \r\nnot taking responsibility for his duties and so I think that the 15 to \r\n20 range is pretty fair given the circumstances.   \r\n \r\n \r\n3 RCr 9.42 mandates the opening statement should precede closing argument \r\nin a criminal jury trial �unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs.�  \r\nBecause �Kentucky courts require that closing arguments . . . be predicated on \r\nevidence introduced during the trial of the case,� it is difficult to conceive how counsel \r\ncan properly argue the evidence prior to the introduction of evidence.  See Leslie W. \r\nAbramson, 9 Ky. Prac., Crim. Prac. & Proc. � 29:12 (6th ed.).  Nevertheless, in \r\nconsideration of the constitutional dimension of appropriate closing argument, �the \r\ncourt should not restrict the reasonable decisions of the parties regarding the division \r\nor order of the arguments.�  Id. at � 29:11.  \r\n4 Of the four-minute argument, approximately three minutes were devoted to \r\nthe subject of Smith�s recidivism while the remaining minute addressed the possibility \r\nof early release.   \r\n10 \r\n \r\nThe prosecutor then segued into a discussion concerning the possibility of \r\nearly release.  The alleged misstatements occurred in the context of the \r\nfollowing remarks:  \r\nNow you�re going to hear from Karen Palmer, she�s with Probation \r\nand Parole, that when we hear fifteen to twenty years, that�s not�\r\nfor, for what�s considered a non-violent offense�that�s not actually \r\nfifteen to twenty years; they become parole eligible at 20% of that. \r\nAnd so, for instance, just to make the math easy, if somebody was \r\nconvicted at ten years, 20% parole eligibility would be two years. \r\nNow, if someone, as [defense counsel] said, nobody, we don�t know \r\nwho�s going to make parole, that�s up to the Parole Board, they \r\ndecide that whenever he comes, becomes eligible. But even if \r\nsomebody doesn�t make parole, even if they�re told they have to \r\nserve out, that also doesn�t mean that they serve an actual fifteen \r\nto twenty years if you give somewhere in that range. People also get \r\nthings like good time credits taken off their sentence and Miss \r\nPalmer�s going to testify more about that, and you�ll see that even a \r\ntwenty-year sentence can end up being more like ten at the most if \r\n[Smith] doesn�t make parole. \r\n \r\nThe Commonwealth then concluded its argument by asking the jury �to just \r\nlisten to the witnesses that we have.�    \r\nAs this Court has previously held, the four-part test for flagrant \r\nmisconduct must account for the totality of the Commonwealth�s argument.  \r\nYoung, 25 S.W.3d at 74-75.  Under the first factor, we perceive the \r\nCommonwealth�s remark, that Smith could only serve ten years at the most on \r\na twenty-year sentence, to have been misleading and weighs in Smith�s favor.  \r\nThe wide latitude we afford to counsel in making responsive argument is not a \r\nlicense to improvise on the law.  It was highly speculative and unrealistic for \r\nthe Commonwealth to assume Smith could obtain such a radical reduction in \r\nprison time despite the availability of good-time and educational credits.  \r\nHowever, the Commonwealth�s other statements that a fifteen-to-twenty-year \r\n11 \r\n \r\nsentence would not necessarily result in Smith serving a literal fifteen to twenty \r\nyears in prison were correct and permitted by KRS 532.055(2)(a), which allows \r\nthe introduction of evidence relating to both parole eligibility and potential good \r\ntime credit.  As such, under the second factor, the objectionable comment was \r\nisolated and weighs in the Commonwealth�s favor.   \r\nRegarding the third factor, we do not view the Commonwealth as having \r\ndeliberately placed a misstatement of law before the jury.  Given the isolation of \r\nthe remark and its responsiveness to Smith�s argument, it is equally plausible \r\nthat the Commonwealth�s misstatement was inadvertent as it is that the \r\nprosecutor brazenly misrepresented the law.  See Ray, 611 S.W.3d at 270; see \r\nalso Murphy v. Commonwealth, 509 S.W.3d 34, 55 (Ky. 2017).  For this reason, \r\nwe conclude the third factor weighs in neither party�s favor.  Murphy, 509 \r\nS.W.3d at 55.   \r\nUnder the fourth factor relating to the strength of the evidence, we have \r\nno doubt the evidence justifies the maximum enhancement on the PFO charge.  \r\nThe propriety of a PFO enhancement does not depend on the relative severity of \r\nthe underlying crime and other predicate offenses.  See Hardin v. \r\nCommonwealth, 573 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Ky. 1978) (explaining the purpose of the \r\nPFO statute is to homogenize �the treatment of recidivists with the new penal \r\ncode and uniform proceedings dealing with persistent felony offenders�), \r\nsuperseded by statute as stated in Blair v. Commonwealth, No. 2002-SC-0834-\r\nMR, 2005 WL 387274 (Ky.",
+                        "Feb. 17, 2005).   \r\n12 \r\n \r\nHere, rather than basing Smith�s sentence on the Commonwealth�s \r\nmisstatement, it is just as likely�if not more so�that the jury found Smith \r\ndeserving of maximum punishment on the PFO based on his overall criminal \r\nhistory5, and because he exploited the leniency of probation to commit an \r\nadditional felony offense.  Moreover, this Court has routinely upheld, as \r\nproportional punishment, maximum PFO enhancements predicated on \r\nnonviolent Class D felonies.  Turpin v. Commonwealth, 350 S.W.3d 444, 449 \r\n(Ky. 2011); Riley v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 622, 634 (Ky. 2003).  Indeed, \r\n�[r]ecidivism has long been recognized as a legitimate basis for increased \r\npunishment.�  Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 25 (2003) (plurality opinion).     \r\nNevertheless, against the weight of this evidence, we must also acknowledge \r\nthe reasoning of Robinson v. Commonwealth, which emphasized the inherent \r\ndifficulty in discerning whether improper testimony �influenced the jury to \r\nrender a sentence greater than what it might otherwise have given absent the \r\nincorrect testimony.�  181 S.W.3d 30, 38 (Ky. 2005).  Thus, we conclude the \r\nfourth factor also weighs in neither party�s favor.    \r\nHaving concluded the test for flagrant misconduct results in a �state of \r\nrelative equipoise[,]� we �use the general test for whether relief for prosecutorial \r\nmisconduct is proper:  an examination of the trial as a whole to determine if \r\n \r\n5 The underlying offense was failure to comply with sex offender registration.  \r\nThe predicate offenses for the PFO enhancement were second-degree unlawful \r\ntransaction with a minor and aggravated assault.  Smith�s prior misdemeanor offenses \r\nincluded second-degree sexual abuse, fourth-degree assault, third-degree criminal \r\ntrespass, drug possession, criminal impersonation, and failure to appear. \r\n13 \r\n \r\nthe improper comments undermined the essential fairness of [Smith�s] trial.�  \r\nMayo, 322 S.W.3d at 57.  On the present record, we discern no indication the \r\nCommonwealth�s misstatement subjected Smith to manifest injustice.     \r\nIn delineating the prejudicial effect of closing argument, this Court has \r\noften noted that argument is not evidence, and here, Smith did not object to \r\nany of the testimony presented during the penalty phase.  See Slaughter v. \r\nCommonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Ky. 1987).  Further, the trial court \r\nrectified Smith�s complaints regarding the sentencing instructions, except for \r\nhis claim�which has now been abandoned�that the PFO charge improperly \r\nsubjected him to a double enhancement.6  \r\nImportantly, Smith effectively cross-examined Palmer regarding her \r\ntestimony that no limitation exists on the amount of educational credit an \r\ninmate can receive, with Palmer admitting educational credits were functionally \r\nlimited by the availability of classes at any given facility.  Additionally, Smith \r\ncross-examined Palmer on parole eligibility and good-time credit.  Thus, the \r\nCommonwealth�s misstatement did not stand entirely unrebutted.  Further, \r\nunder the hybrid procedure to which the parties agreed, Smith�s ability to \r\ncross-examine Palmer on the general subject-matter of the Commonwealth�s \r\nmisstatement distinguishes the present appeal from those decisions where the \r\nCommonwealth�s improper closing argument remained the final word.  See \r\n \r\n6  Smith has not raised any claims regarding the sentencing instructions on \r\nappeal.  Therefore, they have been abandoned.  See Middleton v. Commonwealth, 198 \r\nKy. 625, 249 S.W. 777 (1923).     \r\n14 \r\n \r\nBeard, 581 S.W.3d at 546; Robinson, 181 S.W.3d at 38; and Evans v. \r\nCommonwealth, 544 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Ky. App. 2018).  Under these \r\ncircumstances, we cannot conclude the Commonwealth�s misstatement \r\namounted to manifest injustice or otherwise rendered the sentencing phase \r\nfundamentally unfair.     \r\nCertainly, any misstatement of the law is subject to correction upon a \r\ntimely objection.  But relief for �palpable error �must involve prejudice more \r\negregious than that occurring in reversible error[.]��  Brewer v. Commonwealth, \r\n206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 2006) (quoting Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d \r\n744, 758 (Ky. 2005)).  Moreover, palpable error review �is not a substitute for \r\nthe requirement that a litigant must contemporaneously object to preserve an \r\nerror[.]�  Commonwealth v. Pace, 82 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Ky. 2002).  Indeed, �[w]e \r\ncan only wonder whether trial counsel erred or whether they deliberately failed \r\nto object to prevent correction of the error and have an issue on which to \r\nappeal in an otherwise error-free trial where proof of guilt was compelling.�  \r\nYoung, 25 S.W.3d at 74 (quoting Cook v. Bordenkircher, 602 F.2d 117, 121 (6th \r\nCir. 1979)).  Thus, we remain unconvinced �the defect in the proceeding was \r\nshocking or jurisprudentially intolerable� such that reversal is necessary to \r\navoid manifest injustice.  See Payne v. Commonwealth, 681 S.W.",
+                        "3d 1, 5 (Ky. \r\n2023) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006)).   \r\nTo be clear, we �do not condone the portion of the Commonwealth�s \r\nargument challenged by [Smith.]�  Brewer, 206 S.W.3d at 348.  But for the \r\nfortuity that Smith was able to cross-examine Palmer following the \r\n15 \r\n \r\nCommonwealth�s misstatement, we may well have reversed for a new \r\nsentencing.  Kentucky prosecutors should not risk reversal based on inartful \r\nand ill-considered remarks of minimal utility.     \r\nAll sitting. VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, and Nickell, JJ., concur.  \r\nThompson, J., concurs in part and dissents in part by separate opinion in \r\nwhich Lambert, J., joins. \r\nTHOMPSON, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. I \r\nconcur with the majority opinion�s resolution of Smith�s first argument, that \r\nthe trial court did not err in failing to give the jury an entrapment instruction.  \r\nI dissent from the majority opinion�s decision on Smith�s second \r\nargument, that reversal is not required where the prosecutor drastically \r\nmisrepresented to the jury the amount of time Smith would spend incarcerated \r\nif sentenced to the maximum term as a persistent felony offender in the first \r\ndegree (PFO-1), which thus encouraged the jury to recommend a longer term of \r\nimprisonment. I conclude the Commonwealth�s misstatement that with �things \r\nlike good time credits taken off their sentence . . . you�ll see that even a twenty-\r\nyear sentence can end up being more like ten at the most if he doesn�t make \r\nparole[,]� (emphasis added), constituted flagrant prosecutorial misconduct \r\nunder the four factor test.7 I would determine such an error to be palpable and \r\nreverse and remand for a new PFO penalty phase. \r\n \r\n7 I agree with the majority opinion that the other two statements which Smith \r\ncomplained were errors were not improper as they were accurate. \r\n16 \r\n \r\nIn Robinson v. Commonwealth, 181 S.W.3d 30, 38 (Ky. 2005), our Court \r\nconcluded palpable error required reversal based on misstatements in \r\ntestimony which was repeated in the closing argument that �good time� credit \r\nwould reduce the minimum time needed for parole eligibility. The Court \r\nexplained:  \r\nThe use of incorrect, or false, testimony by the prosecution is a \r\nviolation of due process when the testimony is material. Napue v. \r\nIllinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 272, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 \r\n(1959). This is true irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the \r\nprosecutor. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, \r\n1196�1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). When the prosecution knows \r\nor should have known that the testimony is false, the test for \r\nmateriality is whether �there is any reasonable likelihood that the \r\nfalse testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.� \r\nUnited States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397, 49 \r\nL.Ed.2d 342 (1976). \r\n \r\nId. In Robinson, our Court concluded that the false statement repeated in the \r\nclosing argument had a reasonable likelihood of �influenc[ing] the jury to \r\nrender a sentence greater than what it might otherwise have given absent the \r\nincorrect testimony. We believe it did and, for sure, can�t say it didn�t.� Id.  \r\n Robinson does not stand alone. Time and time again, misstatements that \r\na defendant will be released earlier than is correct under controlling law, which \r\nencourage the jury to recommend a harsher sentence, have been determined to \r\nbe material and to therefore constitute palpable error. In Beard v. \r\nCommonwealth, 581 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Ky. 2019), our Court determined there \r\nwas palpable error where the jury was told the defendant would be eligible for \r\nparole earlier than was correct, because such an error was material and �had a \r\nreasonable likelihood of influencing the jury�s decision regarding [the \r\n17 \r\n \r\ndefendant�s] sentence.� In Ruppee v. Commonwealth, 754 S.W.2d 852, 852-53 \r\n(Ky. 1988), our Court determined that prosecutorial misconduct in advising the \r\njury inaccurately about when the defendant would be released on parole (as a \r\nguarantee rather than mere eligibility) constituted a reversable error, \r\nexplaining �a jury should not be misadvised by the Commonwealth�s Attorney \r\nas to the legal effect of its verdict, nor should a verdict based upon such a \r\nmisstatement of the law be allowed to stand.� See Evans v. Commonwealth, 544 \r\nS.W.3d 166, 170 (Ky. App. 2018) (following our precedent to determine a \r\nmisrepresentation during a closing argument that �if you gave him the \r\nmaximum, he�s only looking at three years to serve� constituted a palpable \r\nerror sufficient for reversal). \r\nThe majority opinion decries the prosecutor�s misstatement, without \r\nimposing any resulting consequences; this decision may encourage prosecutors \r\nto speculate about how much time a defendant is likely to serve, rather than to \r\nexercise appropriate caution.",
+                        "The majority opinion states that our Court has \r\nrecognized that a misstatement of law alone does not automatically require \r\nreversal. It cites to Ray v. Commonwealth, 611 S.W.3d 250, 270 (Ky. 2020), as \r\nan example of when a prosecutor�s misstatement about the law as to how long \r\na defendant would serve did not amount to palpable error, correctly recounting \r\nthat the misstatement was that the defendant would have to serve four more \r\nyears than required to become parole eligible.  \r\nRay does not alter the requirement that material misstatements require \r\nreversal for palpable error. It is logical that a misstatement is not material, and \r\n18 \r\n \r\na defendant is not thereby harmed by it, when the misstatement is likely to \r\nbenefit the defendant by encouraging leniency by the jury and might convince a \r\njury to recommend a lower sentence. It is difficult to imagine how such an error \r\nwhich benefits a defendant rather than causing harm could be material, much \r\nless constitute a palpable error.8 It is another matter entirely to discount that a \r\nmisstatement which could convince a jury to recommend a higher sentence \r\nand harsher penalty to achieve its desired result does not constitute a palpable \r\nerror.  \r\nThis foregoing precedent guides my evaluation of the prosecutor�s \r\nremarks in terms of the four-part test for flagrant prosecutorial misconduct \r\nand leads me to conclude that the Court should have reversed for a new \r\npenalty phase. \r\n1. Whether the remarks tended to mislead the jury or to prejudice  \r\n    the accused.  \r\n \r\nOur truth in sentencing law, Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) \r\n532.055(2)(a), permits the Commonwealth Attorney to present evidence relating \r\nto potential parole and good time credit. See Cornelison v. Commonwealth, 990 \r\nS.W.2d 609, 611 (Ky. 1999). However, in providing such information to the \r\njury, the Commonwealth Attorney is not permitted to make false \r\n \r\n8 Similarly, an error which has no impact cannot be material. See Cecil v. \r\nCommonwealth, 888 S.W.2d 669, 675�76 (Ky. 1994) (noting it would have reversed \r\nhad the sentence imposed been influenced by the error, but reversal for resentencing \r\nwas not required where the jury received correct information about parole eligibility for \r\nthe sentence it recommended). There is also no error where there is simply an \r\nomission of testimony on a topic that the defendant later believes might have been \r\nbeneficial for mitigation purposes. See Kays v. Commonwealth, 505 S.W.3d 260, 273-\r\n74 (Ky. App. 2016). \r\n19 \r\n \r\nrepresentations about what length of time a defendant will actually serve on a \r\nsentence based on such potential reductions.  \r\nAs the majority opinion agrees, the Commonwealth misstated the law \r\nabout the amount of time Smith could serve on a maximum twenty-year \r\nsentence with credits subtracted from it. Such a misstatement is wholly \r\nunacceptable, very misleading, and prejudicial. It was also not corrected \r\nthrough the testimony of Probation and Parole Officer Karen Palmer.   \r\nPalmer testified that �one year is not one year in the prison system� \r\nbecause jail credit and good time credits could decrease an inmate�s sentence. \r\nPalmer explained that Smith was eligible for two different kinds of good time \r\ncredit, �meritorious which grants him seven days per month� and educational \r\ncredit �which grants him ninety days for successful completion of each \r\nqualifying program and there�s no limit to the amount of educational credit that \r\nhe could earn.� (Emphasis added). This reinforced the prosecutor�s \r\nmisrepresentation that Smith could lower his sentence to ten years and was \r\nnot corrected by their subsequent exchanges: \r\nCW: So, if we stand here today and we say he got a fifteen-year \r\nsentence, could you tell us if he never made parole exactly how \r\nmany days he would serve? \r\n \r\nPalmer: I couldn�t tell you exactly. \r\n \r\nCW: Would that largely be up to him and what he does while in \r\nprison? \r\n \r\nPalmer: It would. \r\n \r\n(Emphasis added).  \r\n20 \r\n \r\n On cross-examination, Palmer admitted that although there were no \r\nlimits on the quantity of educational credits which could decrease an inmate�s \r\ntime, the availability of such classes could be limited because some facilities do \r\nnot offer many classes. This clarified that there was no guarantee that Smith \r\ncould get out as soon as the prosecutor stated but did not clarify how close \r\nSmith could get to that �ten at the most� years to serve. The jury was thus left \r\nwith the perception that Smith�s own actions could result in him serving ten \r\nyears.  \r\nHowever, such a large reduction is patently absurd, a factual \r\nimpossibility even under ideal conditions, and not within Smith�s control. The \r\nprosecutor�s error is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that Palmer�s testimony \r\ndid misstate the amount of good time credit Smith could earn to be at a rate of \r\nseven days per month, rather than the correct rate of ten days per month.",
+                        "She \r\napparently confused the provisions of KRS 197.045(1)(b)1, which provides the \r\nrate at which credit is earned for �[g]ood behavior[,]� with that of KRS \r\n197.045(1)(b)2, which provides the rate at which credit earned for �[p]erforming \r\nexceptionally meritorious service[.]�  \r\nIt is certainly true that Smith could attempt to further reduce his \r\nsentence by completing educational courses. I assume that Palmer was \r\nreferring to both inmate programs and academic educational courses and will \r\nrefer to both as classes. However, it is impossible even if �all the stars aligned� \r\n21 \r\n \r\nthat Smith could cut his sentence in half from a combination of credit for good \r\nbehavior and credit for taking classes.9  \r\nTo accomplish such a reduction, Smith would have to take over a dozen \r\nclasses that each qualified for a ninety-day reduction in his sentence, a quite \r\nunlikely scenario at most facilities. Additionally, there are a variety of other \r\nlimiting factors beyond an inmate�s control, including: only being qualified to \r\ntake certain classes based on �penological needs�; the demand for particular \r\nclasses; generally only being able to take two classes at a time; only being \r\neligible for certain classes at specific stages of a sentence; certain classes \r\ntaking a longer time to complete or needing to be taken in a particular \r\nsequence; the requirement that certain prerequisites be met including having a \r\nhigh school diploma or G.E.D. and meeting testing requirements; and \r\npotentially lacking the intellectual capacity to complete classes.  \r\nNo matter how diligent Smith was in completing classes, and no matter \r\nhow ideal his prison facility might be in offering classes, it was simply \r\nimpossible for Smith to come anywhere close to the represented reduction. A \r\nreduction of even a year in his overall sentence would be a highly ambitious \r\n \r\n9 Available courses are listed in the relevant course catalogues: Course \r\nCatalogue of Offender Programs: Adult Institutions, Kentucky Department of \r\nCorrections (2024), https://corrections.ky.gov/Divisions/programs/Documents/ \r\n2024/Q1/AI%20Full%20Catalog.pdf; Division of Education Course Catalogue: Adult \r\nInstitutions, Department of Corrections (2024), https://corrections.ky.gov/Divisions \r\n/programs/Documents/2024/Q1/EDU%20Full%20Catalog.pdf. How these programs \r\nare administered is specified in the Corrections Policies and Procedural Manual (CPP) \r\nwhich is available at https://corrections.ky.gov/About/cpp/Pages/default.aspx. I rely \r\non my perusal of these materials to conclude that no matter an inmate�s efforts, \r\ncompleting the requisite courses for such a reduction would be a Sisyphean task. \r\n22 \r\n \r\ngoal. Thus, the prosecutor knew or should have known this statement was \r\ndemonstrably false. False statements of course qualify as misleading \r\nstatements for purposes of this factor. Ray, 611 S.W.3d at 270. This false \r\nstatement was not corrected later, so it remained material.  \r\nIt was also highly prejudicial as it justified the jury sentencing Smith to a \r\nlonger PFO-1 enhancement to give him the length of sentence it believed he \r\nactually deserved, which may have only been ten years. Accordingly, this \r\nmisstatement of law was material and a violation of Smith�s due process rights. \r\nTherefore, the first factor weighs heavily in Smith�s favor. \r\n2.  Whether the remarks were isolated or extensive. \r\n \r\nThe prosecutor�s comment presented during the combined opening \r\nstatement and closing argument was isolated in that it was only made once \r\nduring his brief statement. However, the misimpression the prosecutor created \r\nthrough this misrepresentation of the law was never corrected by the testimony \r\nthat followed. Instead, Palmer�s testimony strengthened the impression that \r\nSmith could vastly reduce his sentence based on his own hard work without \r\nany limitation other than a particular facility having fewer available classes. \r\nStill, this second factor weighs in favor of this remark being non-flagrant.  \r\n3. Whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally placed  \r\n    before the jury.  \r\n \r\nI believe this remark was deliberately placed before the jury. The \r\nprosecutor used very specific and clear language as to the most time Smith \r\ncould serve in contravention of what should have been known to him, that \r\n23 \r\n \r\nsuch a large reduction was impossible. Whether the prosecutor acted in good \r\nfaith or bad faith in making such an incorrect pronouncement, such language \r\nappears designed to absolve the jury from feeling any concern for the result of \r\nenhancing Smith�s sentence to the maximum one possible, as was decried in \r\nRuppee, 754 S.W.2d at 853. This third factor weighs strongly in favor of Smith.  \r\n4. The strength of the evidence against the accused.",
+                        "Finally, I consider the strength of the evidence against Smith both in \r\nterms of his guilt and in terms of how his prior criminal history should have \r\ninfluenced the PFO-1 enhancement he received. While evidence of Smith�s guilt \r\nwas substantial, he is not challenging his initial sentence but rather his PFO-1 \r\nenhanced sentence. As to this, it was his prior criminal history that was \r\nprimarily at issue regarding the appropriate amount of enhancement. I cannot \r\nsay that the jury would have necessarily imposed the maximum PFO-1 \r\nsentence on Smith without such a misrepresentation about the maximum time \r\nhe would serve if he behaved well and diligently completed classes.  \r\nThe Commonwealth argues that Smith�s sentence was the result of his \r\ncriminal history. While this is possible, although his criminal history was \r\nsufficient for the PFO-1 enhancement as he had two prior felonies, these were \r\nboth low level felonies and his other criminal history consisted of \r\nmisdemeanors and violations.  \r\nSmith�s last convictions were for unlawful transaction with a minor, a \r\nClass D felony, and sexual abuse in the second degree, a misdemeanor. Smith \r\nhad been probated for these crimes. His failure to register as a sex offender was \r\n24 \r\n \r\nbased on that underlying misdemeanor, with the failure to register constituting \r\na felony. Smith�s only other felony was an aggravated assault conviction out of \r\nTennessee which resulted in a three-year sentence. This would be a Class D \r\nfelony in Kentucky. \r\nAs to Smith�s other Kentucky and Tennessee convictions, as testified to \r\nby the circuit court clerk, they consisted of misdemeanors and a violation. \r\nSmith had Kentucky convictions for: (1) a conviction for criminal trespassing-\r\nthird degree with no sentence indicated,10 and (2) an assault in the fourth-\r\ndegree conviction which resulted in a thirty-day sentence. Smith had \r\nTennessee convictions for: (1) a conviction for simple possession, a Class A \r\nmisdemeanor for which he was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine \r\ndays, with thirty-days to serve; (2) a conviction for simple possession which did \r\nnot indicate a sentence; and (3) a conviction for criminal impersonation, a \r\nClass B misdemeanor, which resulted in a $50 fine.  \r\nThis fourth factor weighs in Smith�s favor because the evidence properly \r\nbefore the jury did not indicate that he had such a serious criminal history as \r\nto warrant a maximum twenty-year sentence.  \r\n  \r\n \r\n10 Criminal trespass in the third degree could only constitute a violation when \r\nSmith was convicted of committing it. See KRS 511.080(2) (amended by 2022 \r\nKentucky Laws Ch. 151 � 8 (SB 179) to elevate a violation to a Class B felony if it \r\noccurs during a declared emergency). Therefore, he could only be sentenced to a fine \r\nof up to $250. KRS 534.040(2)(c).  \r\n25 \r\n \r\n5. Overall Assessment of the Factors  \r\nAs three factors weigh strongly in favor of reversal for a flagrant error, \r\nand one factor supports this error being non-flagrant, I conclude that Smith \r\nhas provided ample justification for reversal on this issue. The Commonwealth \r\nAttorney�s affirmative misrepresentation about the maximum time Smith could \r\nserve on a twenty-year sentence constituted a material and palpable error \r\nbecause it had a reasonable likelihood of influencing the jury�s decision to \r\nrender a sentence greater than what it might otherwise have imposed absent \r\nthe incorrect information.  \r\nWhile Palmer made one misstatement which indicated Smith would earn \r\nless good time than KRS 197.045(1)(b)1 provides, her misstatement was still \r\ndwarfed by the Commonwealth�s misrepresentation that Smith could reduce \r\nhis imposed sentence by half and Palmer�s misrepresentation that the time \r\nSmith served would largely be up to him. Thus, we do not have a Ray type \r\nerror before us. Instead, the net result of the prosecutor�s misstatement would \r\nserve to encourage the jury to recommend the maximum sentence to achieve a \r\nlonger than ten-year actual sentence to serve.  \r\nHaving considered all of the factors, I cannot say that the jury would \r\nhave sentenced Smith to the maximum PFO sentence had it understood that \r\neven if he was placed at an ideal facility and put forth his best efforts to behave \r\nand take classes, Smith was still likely to serve around fifteen years of his \r\nsentence if not paroled. In accordance with my analysis of the four factors and \r\n26 \r\n \r\nour precedent, I consider such error palpable. Therefore, I would affirm Smith�s \r\nconviction and reverse and remand for a new penalty phase.   \r\nLambert, J., joins. \r\n \r\n \r\nCOUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: \r\nRoy A. Durham \r\nAssistant Public Advocate \r\n \r\nCOUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: \r\nRussell M. Coleman \r\nAttorney General of Kentucky \r\n \r\nMatthew R.",
+                        "Krygiel \r\nAssistant Attorney General"
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2896526",
+                    "parentID": "e0630048e6b2c218eb0c3ce3db883306cf7cb4225736d86f13695e8786c2a05b",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "DISPOSITION - MEMORANDUM OPINION",
+                    "parentSubtype": "AFFIRMING",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-04-18T10:02:30.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "2ae5f5d32db53e3443fff9b929235240525611fa613339dc590e2e0f03e43473",
+                        "caseNumber": "2022-SC-0459",
+                        "caseStatus": "FINAL",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-05-09T15:36:26.000+0000",
+                        "closed": true,
+                        "shortTitle": "DONAVON I. SMITH\r\nV.\r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "CRIMINAL",
+                        "caseClassification": "MATTER OF RIGHT - CRIMINAL - DPA",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2022-10-21T04:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                        "courtLevel": "Supreme Court",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "id": "41bd4954307d98e050086c4e90154ba42986ef6e0718a629f123f38e8a3c82a4",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2024-SC-0027",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "SUSPENDING",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "OPINION AND ORDER INDEFINITELY SUSPENDING",
+                "docketEntryType": "DISPOSITION - OPINION AND ORDER",
+                "docketEntryID": "41bd4954307d98e050086c4e90154ba42986ef6e0718a629f123f38e8a3c82a4",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "a4073b0e6cda107bf4967d4dd54dc34e93fd6c6f4c230ca928513cc31337315e",
+                "filedDate": "2024-04-19T00:49:35.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3.0,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119519",
+                    "documentID": "09fd331e35c0aea4374f136568d854db0d01b0b3be6e96bccec9336b7a5a1e10",
+                    "documentName": "OPINION AND ORDER SUSPENDING",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "TO BE PUBLISHED \r\nSupreme Court of Kentucky \r\n2024-SC-0027-KB \r\n \r\n \r\nIN RE: GARY ALAN TABLER \r\n \r\n \r\nIN SUPREME COURT \r\n \r\n \r\nOPINION AND ORDER  \r\n \r\n This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the Kentucky Bar \r\nAssociation (�KBA�), pursuant to SCR1 3.167, to indefinitely suspend Gary Alan \r\nTabler from the practice of law due to his failure to file an Answer to a Charge.  \r\nTabler�s KBA member number is 69510 and his bar roster address is 7209 Ben \r\nFranklin Court, Louisville, Kentucky 40214.  For the following reasons, we \r\ngrant the KBA's motion. \r\n Tabler was charged as a result of his work as administrator of the Estate \r\nof Joyce Hardin.  During the ten years he served as administrator, Tabler on \r\nmultiple occasions failed to file timely estate inventories and periodic \r\nsettlements. Tabler also failed to properly distribute estate assets to Hardin�s \r\nheirs.  After Tabler�s repeated failures, the district court relieved him of his \r\nduties and appointed a public administrator.  Once removed, Tabler refused to \r\nturn over any documentation related to the estate, despite court orders that he \r\ndo so.  Ultimately, the public administrator subpoenaed the estate�s bank \r\n \r\n1 Supreme Court Rule. \r\n  \r\n2 \r\n \r\nrecords and discovered that Tabler had written thirty checks to himself from \r\nthe estate�s bank account.  The unauthorized checks amounted to $180,725.00 \r\nmisappropriated from the estate.  \r\n The Jefferson County Public Administrator filed the underlying Bar \r\ncomplaint against Tabler on May 2, 2023.  Tabler was served with the \r\ncomplaint by certified mail on May 11, 2023.  Initially, counsel for Tabler \r\ncommunicated with the Office of Bar Counsel (�OBC�), first requesting on June \r\n27, 2023, an extension to file a response, and finally filing that response on \r\nJuly 18, 2023.  At that time, Tabler�s counsel denied the allegation that Tabler \r\nhad written checks in excess of $200,000.00 to himself from the estate�s bank \r\naccount.2  Tabler�s counsel moved to withdraw on September 22, 2023, and in \r\nits response, the OBC did not oppose.  After receiving the OBC�s response to \r\nthe motion, Tabler submitted an affidavit on October 2, 2023, stating that he \r\nhad been unaware of his attorney�s motion to withdraw, but also that he had \r\nno objection to withdrawal and requested thirty days to obtain new counsel.  \r\nThe Inquiry Commission granted counsel�s motion on October 9, 2023. \r\n On October 4, 2023, the OBC filed a petition for temporary suspension \r\npursuant to SCR 3.165.(1)(a) alleging Tabler had improperly used client funds.  \r\nTabler attempted to file a response to the petition with the Inquiry Committee, \r\nwhich the OBC received on October 24, 2023, and was forwarded to Deputy \r\n \r\n2 The initial complaint alleged Tabler had removed over $200,000.00 from the \r\naccount, however records from the bank placed the figure at the $180,725.00 amount \r\nnoted earlier. \r\n  \r\n3 \r\n \r\nBar Counsel on November 6, 2023.  Bar Counsel informed Tabler he needed to \r\nfile his response with the Court, however Tabler failed to do so.  On December \r\n14, 2023, this Court entered an order temporarily suspending Tabler. \r\n On October 13, 2023, the Inquiry Commission issued a charge against \r\nTabler for violations of SCR 3.130(1.3),3 SCR 3.130(1.15)(a),4 SCR \r\n3.130(1.16)(d),5 and SCR 3.130(8.4)(c).6  Tabler was served the Charge by \r\ncertified mail on October 20, 2023.  No Answer was received by November 11, \r\n2023.  The KBA then sought service through the Jefferson County Sherriff�s \r\nOffice, but it was unable to locate Tabler.  Accordingly, service was completed \r\nagain on December 20, 2023, by service upon the Executive Director of the \r\nKBA pursuant to SCR 3.035(2).  As of January 24, 2024, the KBA had received \r\n \r\n3 �A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing \r\na client.� \r\n4 �A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's \r\npossession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own \r\nproperty.  Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the \r\nlawyer's office is situated, or elsewhere with the consent of the client, third person, or \r\nboth in the event of a claim by each to the property.  The separate account referred to \r\nin the preceding sentence shall be maintained in a bank which has agreed to notify \r\nthe Kentucky Bar Association in the event that any overdraft occurs in the account.  \r\nOther property shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded.",
+                        "Complete \r\nrecords of such account funds and other property shall be kept by the lawyer and \r\nshall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the representation.� \r\n5 �Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent \r\nreasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice \r\nto the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and \r\nproperty to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or \r\nexpense that has not been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers relating \r\nto the client to the extent permitted by other law.� \r\n6 �It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . engage in conduct involving \r\ndishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[.]� \r\n  \r\n4 \r\n \r\nno Answer to the Charge.  The KBA now seeks an order indefinitely suspending \r\nTabler from the practice of law. \r\n We agree with the KBA that an indefinite suspension is warranted.  \r\nTabler�s prior discipline includes three private admonitions.  The first, on \r\nMarch 14, 1997, was regarding Tabler�s failure to act with diligence when he \r\nneglected to finalize a divorce decree.  The second, on May 11, 2006, was given \r\nafter Tabler wrote a check for a custodial evaluation on behalf of his client \r\nbefore depositing the reimbursement check he received from his client�s family \r\nmember.  The check bounced and Tabler�s escrow account was not set up to \r\nnotify the KBA of any overdrafts as required.  The final private admonition was \r\ngiven on February 15, 2010, after Tabler filed a personal injury case in the \r\nwrong jurisdiction and failed to inform his client of the case�s dismissal or the \r\napplicable statute of limitations until after the appeal was denied.  These prior \r\nacts taken in conjunction with the present charge�which would itself be \r\nsufficient to justify indefinite suspension�convince us that the indefinite \r\nremoval of Tabler from the practice of law is justified. \r\n Based on the foregoing, Gary Allen Tabler is hereby SUSPENDED from \r\nthe practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky pending further order of \r\nthis Court.  Tabler may seek reinstatement of his license to practice but shall \r\nbe prepared to explain his conduct and suggest a remedial course of action to  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n5 \r\n \r\nprevent recurrence of the behavior discussed herein. \r\n All sitting.   All concur.",
+                        "ENTERED:  April 18, 2024. \r\n \r\n \r\n  ______________________________________ \r\n  CHIEF JUSTICE"
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2896611",
+                    "parentID": "41bd4954307d98e050086c4e90154ba42986ef6e0718a629f123f38e8a3c82a4",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "DISPOSITION - OPINION AND ORDER",
+                    "parentSubtype": "SUSPENDING",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-04-19T00:49:35.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "a4073b0e6cda107bf4967d4dd54dc34e93fd6c6f4c230ca928513cc31337315e",
+                        "caseNumber": "2024-SC-0027",
+                        "caseStatus": "CASE OPENED",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-04-29T15:20:24.000+0000",
+                        "closed": false,
+                        "shortTitle": "IN RE: GARY ALAN TABLER",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "REGULATION",
+                        "caseClassification": "LAWYERS - REGULATION - SCR OTHER (PUBLIC)",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2024-01-24T05:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                        "courtLevel": "Supreme Court",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        }
+    ],
+    "headers": [
+        {
+            "label": "Type",
+            "type": "String",
+            "property": "docketEntryType",
+            "sortProperty": "docketEntryType.raw",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        },
+        {
+            "label": "Subtype",
+            "type": "String",
+            "property": "docketEntrySubtype",
+            "sortProperty": "docketEntrySubtype.raw",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        },
+        {
+            "label": "Description",
+            "type": "String",
+            "property": "docketEntryDescription",
+            "sortProperty": "docketEntryDescription.sort",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        },
+        {
+            "label": "Filed Date",
+            "type": "Date",
+            "property": "filedDate",
+            "sortProperty": "filedDate",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        }
+    ],
+    "facets": [
+        {
+            "searchFacetName": "Court",
+            "searchFacetField": "caseHeader.court",
+            "searchFacetOrderBy": 1,
+            "searchFacetType": "String",
+            "searchFacetItems": [
+                {
+                    "display": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                    "value": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                    "count": 69,
+                    "selected": false
+                },
+                {
+                    "display": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                    "value": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                    "count": 22,
+                    "selected": true
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "searchFacetName": "Case Final",
+            "searchFacetField": "caseHeader.closed",
+            "searchFacetOrderBy": 7,
+            "searchFacetType": "Boolean",
+            "searchFacetItems": [
+                {
+                    "display": "false",
+                    "value": "false",
+                    "count": 22,
+                    "selected": false
+                }
+            ]
+        }
+    ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.compare.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.compare.json
index c818f0361..7bdbc5734 100644
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.compare.json
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.compare.json
@@ -1,1002 +1,50 @@
 [
   {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000172.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "Isaac W. Bernheim Foundation v. Louisville Gas and Electric Company",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/7c6d4661ec7cd6274e37e8a85c574121abef15bb667f84b1b4f314616aea29d3/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2020 CA 000172",
+    "dispositions": "OPINION AFFIRMING",
+    "docket_numbers": "2023-CA-0458",
+    "judges": "McNeill",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000935.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "George Dixon v. Steven Turley",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/bff964c7c597ecefe7d881cf4f99da7e73000979851cde45320a0a4710e4be96/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unpublished",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000935",
+    "dispositions": "OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING",
+    "docket_numbers": "2022-CA-1460",
+    "judges": "Karem",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000540.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-29",
+    "case_names": "Kelley Heavener v. Joseph Carlisle Rogers",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/24fdd6bef78c6191ca4841c8c67c5a8a00365c9569fd7ba476bcb7d760c487bb/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unpublished",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000540",
+    "dispositions": "OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING",
+    "docket_numbers": "2023-CA-0192",
+    "judges": "Caldwell",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000223.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-01",
+    "case_names": "D.L.R. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services",
+    "download_urls": "https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/f44d5375edc553446b47172d7471590704018499b5b62ea1eb3c7a4bc76aff16/download",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unpublished",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000223",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000159.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000159",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000114.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000114",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001877.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001877",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001848.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001848",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001361.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001361",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001307.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001307",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001210.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001210",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001083.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001083",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001017.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001017",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000932.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000932",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-13",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001996.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2017 CA 001996",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000020.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2020 CA 000020",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001290.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001290",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001137.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001137",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000511.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000511",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000350.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000350",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000297.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000297",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000177.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000177",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000091.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000091",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000074.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000074",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001289.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001289",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000865.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000865",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000802.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000802",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-08-06",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001835.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2017 CA 001835",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000019.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2020 CA 000019",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001597.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001597",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001243.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001243",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001240.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001240",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000855.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000855",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000557.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000557",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000132.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000132",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000093.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000093",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001891.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001891",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001744.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001744",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001664.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001664",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001645.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001645",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001384.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001384",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001071.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001071",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000830.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000830",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-30",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000242.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000242",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001311.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001311",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001274.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001274",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001179.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001179",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001093.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001093",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000936.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000936",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000931.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000931",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000901.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000901",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000729.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000729",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000359.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000359",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000279.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000279",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001725.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001725",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001555.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001555",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001497.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001497",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001046.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001046",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000658.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000658",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000479.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000479",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000463.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000463",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001989.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2017 CA 001989",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-23",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2016-CA-001586.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2016 CA 001586",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001232.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001232",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001133.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001133",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001056.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001056",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001009.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001009",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000953.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000953",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000778.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000778",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000777.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000777",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000631.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000631",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000460.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000460",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000415.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000415",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001742.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001742",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001160.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001160",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000934.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000934",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000598.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000598",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000505.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000505",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001948.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2017 CA 001948",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-16",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2016-CA-000065.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2016 CA 000065",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000451.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2020 CA 000451",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001747.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001747",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001264.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001264",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001242.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001242",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001176.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 001176",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000980.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000980",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000911.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000911",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000573.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000573",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000294.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000294",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000253.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000253",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000198.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000198",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000176.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2019 CA 000176",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001876.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001876",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001614.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001614",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001000.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001000",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000448.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000448",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-09",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000381.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 000381",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-08",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2013-CA-001823.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2013 CA 001823",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-01",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001861.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001861",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2020-07-01",
-    "case_names": "No case names fetched during tests.",
-    "download_urls": "http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001388.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "2018 CA 001388",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "dispositions": "OPINION AFFIRMING",
+    "docket_numbers": "2022-CA-1454, 1456, 1457",
+    "judges": "Taylor",
+    "case_name_shorts": "D.L.R."
   }
 ]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.html b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.html
deleted file mode 100644
index 1d454e518..000000000
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,489 +0,0 @@
-
-<!-- saved from url=(0042)http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll -->
-<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
-
-	<!--<base href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch_form.html">--><base href=".">
-	<title>
-		xfirstword
-	</title>
-<script language="JavaScript">
-    nFirstLink = 0;
-    nLinksPerItem = 2;
-    nDoc = -1;
-
-var simpleNav = 1;
-var browser = navigator.appName;
-var version = parseInt(navigator.appVersion);
-if ((browser.indexOf("Microsoft") != -1) && (version >= 4))
-    simpleNav = 0;
-
-function setCurrentDoc(n) {
-    nDoc = n;
-    }
-
-function gotoDoc(n) {
-    nLink = nFirstLink + (n * nLinksPerItem);
-    if (n < 0)
-        return;
-    if (nLink >= document.links.length)
-        return;
-    setCurrentDoc(n);
-    link = document.links[nLink];
-    // Can also set parent.doc.window.location.href but that sometimes crashes IE
-    parent.window.open(link.href, "doc");
-
-    if (link.y)
-        // Netscape
-        window.scrollTo(0, link.y);
-    else
-        // IE
-        window.scrollTo(0, link.offsetTop + link.offsetHeight + link.offsetParent.offsetTop);
-
-    if (!simpleNav) {
-    var s = document.body.createTextRange();
-    if (s == null) return;
-    s.moveToElementText(link);
-    s.moveEnd("word");
-    s.scrollIntoView(1);
-    s.select();
-
-        }
-    }
-
-function nextDoc() {
-    gotoDoc(nDoc+1);
-    }
-function prevDoc() {
-    gotoDoc(nDoc-1);
-    }
-</script><script>(function n(){!function(){function e(e,t,n){t=t||{};var r=e.ownerDocument||e,i=r.createEvent?r.createEvent("CustomEvent"):r.createEventObject();i.initCustomEvent&&i.initCustomEvent(t.type,!!t.bubbles,!!t.cancelable,t.detail);for(var a in t)i[a]=t[a];return setTimeout(function(){try{e.dispatchEvent?e.dispatchEvent(i):e.fireEvent("on"+t.type,r.createEventObject())}catch(n){var a=e["listen"+t.type];if(a)for(var o=0;o<a.length;++o)try{a[o].call(e,i)}catch(e){}}n()},0),this}function t(e,t,n){function r(e,t){try{var n=e.ownerDocument;if(n.createEventObject){var r=n.createEventObject();e.fireEvent("on"+t,r)}else r=n.createEvent("HTMLEvents"),r.initEvent(t,!0,!0),e.dispatchEvent(r)}catch(e){}}var i=!0,a=e.className&&e.className.indexOf("fancified")!=-1;if(window.jQuery){var o=window.jQuery(e);try{if(o.selectBoxIt)o.selectBoxIt("selectOption",o.val());else if(o.data("chosen")||o.chosen)o.trigger("chosen:updated").trigger("liszt:updated");else if(o.data("chooserElement"))o.trigger("change");else if(o.fancySelect)o.get("fancySelect").select("value",o.val());else if(o.selectBox)o.selectBox("value",o.val());else if(o.selectric)o.selectric("refresh");else if(o.coreUISelect){var s=o.data("coreUISelect");s.isSelectShow=!0,s.changeDropdownData(),s.isSelectShow=!1}else if(o.data("myJSPulldownObject")){var l=o.data("myJSPulldownObject");l.setToValue(o.val())}else if(o.fancyfields)o.setVal(o.val());else if(o.data("select2"));else if(o.data("selectize"))i=!1,o.data("selectize").setValue(o.val());else if(o.hasClass("fancified"))o.trigger("update");else if(o.selectmenu){var c=o.val();try{o.selectmenu("value",o[0].options[0].value)}catch(e){}o.selectmenu("value",c)}else o.hasClass("select-hidden")&&o.next("div.select-styled").length&&o.next("div.select-styled").next(".select-options").length&&(ulElement=o.next("div.select-styled").next(".select-options"),liElement=ulElement.find("li[rel='"+o.val()+"']"),liElement.click());o.trigger("change")}catch(e){}}i&&(a&&r(e,"update"),r(e,"change"),r(e,"blur")),n()}function n(t,n,r,i){var a=t.value;e(t,{type:"keydown",keyCode:n,which:n,charCode:n,bubbles:!0},function(){e(t,{type:"keypress",keyCode:n,which:n,charCode:n,bubbles:!0},function(){setTimeout(function(){var o=t.value;a==o&&(t.value=r),e(t,{type:"input",keyCode:n,which:n,charCode:n,bubbles:!0},function(){e(t,{type:"keyup",keyCode:n,which:n,charCode:n,bubbles:!0},function(){i()})})},1)})})}function r(e,t,i,a){if(!t||""==t)return void a();var o=t.charCodeAt(0);i+=t.charAt(0),n(e,o,i,function(){r(e,t.substring(1),i,a)})}function i(t,n,r){if(window.abineTriggerChangeInProgress)return void setTimeout(function(){i(t,n,r)},100);t.setAttribute("mmautofilling","now"),t.focus(),t.value=n;var a=!0;window.abineTriggerChangeInProgress=!0;try{if(window.jQuery){var o=window.jQuery(t);if(o.data("rawMaskFn")||o.mask||o.CardPhoneFormatting)o.focus().val(n).trigger("input").trigger("paste");else if(o.next(".inner").find(".options").length){a=!1;var s=o.next(".inner").find(".options"),l=s.find("span");l.each(function(){var e=$(this),t=$(e).html();t.toLowerCase().indexOf(n)>-1&&$(e).click()})}}}catch(e){}t.defaultValue=n;try{var c=t._valueTracker;c&&c.setValue(n+"old")}catch(e){}try{t.__preactattr_&&t.__preactattr_.onChange&&(t.value=n,t.__preactattr_.onChange({target:t}),t.click())}catch(e){}try{var u=new Event("input",{bubbles:!0,cancelable:!0,data:n});u.simulated=!0,t.dispatchEvent(u)}catch(e){}try{e(t,{type:"keyup",keyCode:38,which:38,charCode:38,bubbles:!0},function(){})}catch(e){}a?e(t,{type:"change"},function(){e(t,{type:"blur"},function(){window.abineTriggerChangeInProgress=!1,t.removeAttribute("mmautofilling"),r()})}):(t.removeAttribute("mmautofilling"),window.abineTriggerChangeInProgress=!1,r())}function a(t,n,a){try{t.ownerDocument.defaultView.focus()}catch(e){}e(t,{type:"focus"},function(){e(t,{type:"click"},function(){r(t,n+"\n","",function(){i(t,n,function(){e(document,{type:"abineFilled"},function(){a()})})})})})}function o(n,r,i,a){var o=/[\s]+/g,s=(r||"").toLowerCase().replace(o,""),l=function(){e(document,{type:"abineFilled"},function(){a()})},c=!1,u=!1,d=n.getElementsByTagName("option");if(d&&d.length>0){for(var h=-1,f=0;f<d.length;f++){var p=(d[f].text||"").toLowerCase().replace(o,""),m=(d[f].getAttribute("value")||"").toLowerCase().replace(o,"");if(m==s||p==s){d[f].selected||(c=!0,d[f].selected=!0),u=!0;break}h==-1&&p.indexOf(s)!=-1&&(h=f)}u||h==-1||i||d[h].selected||(c=!0,d[h].selected=!0,u=!0)}n.setAttribute("abineFillResponse",u),c?t(n,r,l):l()}function s(){var e=document.getElementsByClassName("abineFillTarget");if(e.length>0)return e[0];for(var t=0;t<frames.length;t++)try{var e=frames[t].document.getElementsByClassName("abineFillTarget");if(e.length>0)return e[0]}catch(e){}return null}function l(){var n=document.createElement("div");n.id="abineFillElement","undefined"!=typeof paypal&&n.setAttribute("data-paypal","1"),"undefined"!=typeof OffAmazonPayments&&n.setAttribute("data-amazon","1"),"undefined"!=typeof MasterPass&&n.setAttribute("data-masterpass","1"),document.documentElement.appendChild(n),n.addEventListener("fill",function(){var t=s();if(t){var r=n.getAttribute("value");a(t,r,function(){})}else e(document,{type:"abineFilled"},function(){})},!1),n.addEventListener("fillSelect",function(){var t=s();if(t){var r=n.getAttribute("value"),i=!!n.getAttribute("skipPartial");o(t,r,i,function(){})}else e(document,{type:"abineFilled"},function(){})}),n.addEventListener("triggerChange",function(){var e=s(),r=n.getAttribute("value");e&&(e.nodeName.match(/select/i)?t(e,r,function(){}):i(e,r,function(){}))})}l()}()})()</script></head>
-<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Verdana" size="2"><hr size="6" noshade="" color="#000080"><font face="Verdana" size="2"><b>Search Results:  <br><font face="Verdana" size="1"><b>Request: </b>xfirstword<br>32858 document(s) retrieved</font></b><font face="Verdana" size="1"><br>
-<font face="Verdana" size="2"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch_form.html">New Search</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch_help.html" target="doc">Help</a></font><br><hr><table border="0" width="100%">
-<tbody><tr valign="top">    <td align="center" bgcolor="#003399"><font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#ffffff">Hits    </font></td>
-    <td align="center" bgcolor="#003399"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#ffffff">Document    </font></td>
-</tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000114.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=632383&amp;DocId=32476&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000114</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>128K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001877.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62e753&amp;DocId=32420&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001877</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>124K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000223.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6321b2&amp;DocId=32514&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000223</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>121K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001083.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6237e8&amp;DocId=32082&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001083</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>145K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001361.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=626e30&amp;DocId=32210&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001361</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>134K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000935.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64b538&amp;DocId=32730&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000935</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>180K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000932.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=61c870&amp;DocId=32008&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>131K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001848.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62bccd&amp;DocId=32406&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>116K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000172.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64fec9&amp;DocId=32850&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2020-CA-000172</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>176K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000540.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=653f6a&amp;DocId=32634&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000540</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>233K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000159.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63af6e&amp;DocId=32489&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000159</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>161K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001307.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62c36e&amp;DocId=32184&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>160K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001210.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=633d96&amp;DocId=32146&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>198K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001017.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62d29f&amp;DocId=32053&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>189K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001996.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=600bee&amp;DocId=31558&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/13/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>106K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001289.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62e07e&amp;DocId=32177&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>169K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000350.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64a1e2&amp;DocId=32565&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000350</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>207K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000865.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6305a6&amp;DocId=31970&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000865</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>218K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001290.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=653102&amp;DocId=32798&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001290</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>198K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000802.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6101e6&amp;DocId=31938&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000802</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>95K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000297.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64480c&amp;DocId=32550&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000297</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>187K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000091.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62fa58&amp;DocId=32467&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000091</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>120K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000511.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=642cdc&amp;DocId=32624&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>166K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000074.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=641c35&amp;DocId=32463&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>193K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000177.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=639068&amp;DocId=32497&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>151K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001137.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6416bd&amp;DocId=32768&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001137.pdf</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>133K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000020.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6563c3&amp;DocId=32849&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">200-CA-00(NP)</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>201K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001835.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=602479&amp;DocId=31469&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>8/6/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>129K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001071.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63611c&amp;DocId=32076&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001071</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>220K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001384.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6347cf&amp;DocId=32222&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001384</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>186K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001240.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=643d68&amp;DocId=32790&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001240.pdf</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>139K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001243.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64a460&amp;DocId=32793&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>164K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000093.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=637623&amp;DocId=32469&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>150K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001597.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6499d5&amp;DocId=32832&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>154K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000855.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=669e14&amp;DocId=32713&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000855.pdf</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>306K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000019.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64258a&amp;DocId=32848&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>122K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001891.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62c32e&amp;DocId=32427&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>114K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000830.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=620a82&amp;DocId=31954&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000830</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>158K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001645.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6263a6&amp;DocId=32327&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001645</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>109K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001664.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=635a29&amp;DocId=32337&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001664</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>169K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001744.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63be43&amp;DocId=32373&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001744</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>155K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000242.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6130ec&amp;DocId=31692&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000242</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>123K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000557.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64a946&amp;DocId=32641&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000557</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>162K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000132.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63f949&amp;DocId=32482&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000132</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/30/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>149K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000729.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=642efd&amp;DocId=32683&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000729</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>124K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001989.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62eb16&amp;DocId=31553&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2017-CA-001989</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>260K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001093.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=649463&amp;DocId=32758&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001093</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>135K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2016-CA-001586.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=5fec82&amp;DocId=30404&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>289K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001274.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6561c4&amp;DocId=32797&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>178K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000931.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64d0f2&amp;DocId=32728&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000931</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>155K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000901.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6479ab&amp;DocId=32720&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000901</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>135K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000279.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=646e54&amp;DocId=32540&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA_000279</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>167K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001725.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63ed84&amp;DocId=32363&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001725</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>169K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001497.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63021a&amp;DocId=32268&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001497</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>128K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000658.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=61c2f8&amp;DocId=31885&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000658</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>122K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001046.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6307e1&amp;DocId=32064&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001046</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>169K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000359.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6424a7&amp;DocId=32568&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>143K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000479.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62b619&amp;DocId=31802&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>199K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000463.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62375d&amp;DocId=31794&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>169K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001179.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6450db&amp;DocId=32780&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>113K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001311.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=652db6&amp;DocId=32799&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>165K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001555.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62e89b&amp;DocId=32299&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>116K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000936.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64a5ee&amp;DocId=32731&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/23/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>144K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001160.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=65a1ea&amp;DocId=32120&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001160.pdf</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>325K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000505.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=621e88&amp;DocId=31818&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>158K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2016-CA-000065.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=5b371c&amp;DocId=29635&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>136K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000631.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=649b25&amp;DocId=32662&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>155K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000598.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=619cd2&amp;DocId=31859&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>118K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001742.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=632a29&amp;DocId=32372&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">200-CA-00(NP)</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>118K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000415.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64cc62&amp;DocId=32587&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000415</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>181K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001232.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64bfca&amp;DocId=32787&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001232</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>140K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000460.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=644844&amp;DocId=32605&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000460</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>145K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000777.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=654fba&amp;DocId=32695&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000777</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>193K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000934.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=625389&amp;DocId=32009&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>134K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000778.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=647ab1&amp;DocId=32696&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>140K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000953.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=650a5a&amp;DocId=32736&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>168K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001133.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6624c7&amp;DocId=32767&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001133</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>233K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001056.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64680b&amp;DocId=32752&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001056</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>125K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2017-CA-001948.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62ccb3&amp;DocId=31532&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2017-CA-001948</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>256K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001009.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64b14a&amp;DocId=32745&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001009</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/16/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>144K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001614.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64e39a&amp;DocId=32316&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001614</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>239K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2020-CA-000451.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=65036e&amp;DocId=32857&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2020-CA-000451</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>143K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000448.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6235ac&amp;DocId=31785&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000448</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>170K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000198.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=640c62&amp;DocId=32505&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000198</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>149K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001747.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=65971d&amp;DocId=32841&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001747</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>183K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001242.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=65da89&amp;DocId=32792&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001242</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>210K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000294.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=649dda&amp;DocId=32548&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>177K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000573.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=645b95&amp;DocId=32647&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>142K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000911.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=647a94&amp;DocId=32724&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>135K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001176.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64c810&amp;DocId=32779&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>143K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000176.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6557b8&amp;DocId=32496&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-000176.pdf</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>234K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001000.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=62cad0&amp;DocId=32042&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>158K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000980.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=6557dc&amp;DocId=32741&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>155K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-000253.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64a594&amp;DocId=32527&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">Commonwealth Of Kentucky</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>151K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001876.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63dc49&amp;DocId=32419&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001876</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>122K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2019-CA-001264.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=64eabb&amp;DocId=32796&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2019-CA-001264</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>117K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-000381.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=625257&amp;DocId=31756&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-000381</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/9/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>152K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2013-CA-001823.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=534b0c&amp;DocId=27304&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2013-CA-001823.pdf</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/8/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>51K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001861.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63fcbf&amp;DocId=32413&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001861</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/1/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>131K<br>
-</font></td></tr><tr valign="top">    <td align="right" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000">1    </font></td>
-    <td align="left" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><a href="http://162.114.92.72/COA/2018-CA-001388.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&amp;u=63644a&amp;DocId=32224&amp;Index=D%3a%5cContent%5cop%2ekycourts%2enet%5cIndex&amp;HitCount=1&amp;hits=1+&amp;SearchForm=%2fdtsearch%5fform%2ehtml&amp;.pdf" target="doc">2018-CA-001388</a><br>
-<b>Date: </b>7/1/2020<br>
-<b>Size: </b>130K<br>
-</font></td></tr></tbody></table><form name="NextPageForm" action="http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll" method="POST">
-<input type="hidden" name="request" value="xfirstword">
-<input type="hidden" name="searchFlags" value="528384">
-<input type="hidden" name="sort" value="Date:0x0">
-<input type="hidden" name="maxFiles" value="2000">
-<input type="hidden" name="pageSize" value="1000">
-<input type="hidden" name="startAt" value="1000">
-<input type="hidden" name="SearchForm" value="/dtsearch_form.html">
-<input type="hidden" name="autoStopLimit" value="0">
-<input type="hidden" name="index" value="D:\Content\op.kycourts.net\Index">
-<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="search">
-</form>
-<form name="LastSearchForm" action="http://162.114.92.72/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll" method="POST">
-<input type="hidden" name="request" value="xfirstword">
-</form>
-<hr><a name="NewSearch"></a>
-<p>
-<small><i>dtSearch 7.87 (x64) (8481)</i></small>
-<!-- Search time:             85.374 ms -->
-
-<!-- Reading options:         1.455 ms -->
-
-<!-- Writing search results:  2.296 ms -->
-
-<!-- Total time for request:  89.125 ms -->
-</p></font></font></font></body><div id="abineFillElement"></div></html>
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8ec0b77fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/kyctapp_example.json
@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+{
+    "resultItems": [
+        {
+            "id": "cb5ee860fa8d6da2dd7d8e732d662bc72f9388059c0e982fcbc59448471e19e5",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2023-CA-0192",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AND ORDER OTHER",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING BY JUDGE CALDWELL",
+                "docketEntryType": "CA - OPINION",
+                "docketEntryID": "cb5ee860fa8d6da2dd7d8e732d662bc72f9388059c0e982fcbc59448471e19e5",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "0a0c4eb3063bc938c38787e4a89139ae5f206b422e9a57123aa659b13016486b",
+                "filedDate": "2024-03-29T09:40:58.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3.0,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119414",
+                    "documentID": "24fdd6bef78c6191ca4841c8c67c5a8a00365c9569fd7ba476bcb7d760c487bb",
+                    "documentName": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AND ORDER OTHER",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "RENDERED:  MARCH 29, 2024; 10:00 A.M. \r\nNOT TO BE PUBLISHED \r\n \r\nCommonwealth of Kentucky \r\nCourt of Appeals \r\n \r\n    \r\nNO. 2023-CA-0192-MR \r\n \r\nKELLEY HEAVENER  APPELLANT  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nv.  \r\nAPPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE ANN BAILEY SMITH, JUDGE \r\nACTION NO. 21-CI-002674 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\nJOSEPH CARLISLE ROGERS; \r\nAMERICAN MUTUAL FIRE \r\nINSURANCE COMPANY OF \r\nKENTUCKY; AND JOHN NORBERT \r\nROGERS  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nAPPELLEES  \r\n \r\n \r\nOPINION AND ORDER  \r\nDISMISSING  \r\n \r\n** ** ** ** ** \r\n \r\nBEFORE:  CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND JONES, JUDGES. \r\nCALDWELL, JUDGE:  Kelley Heavener filed an appeal from a summary \r\njudgment granted in favor of John Norbert Rogers on her claims arising from a dog \r\nattack.  We dismiss the appeal as being from an interlocutory order.   \r\n \r\n \r\n -2- \r\nFACTS \r\n Kelley Heavener and her dog were attacked by another dog (a pit bull) \r\nwhile walking on Delor Avenue in Louisville.  Heavener was physically injured.  \r\nAnd Heavener�s dog died from injuries suffered in the attack.   \r\n The pit bull was owned by Joseph Carlisle Rogers (�Joseph�).  At that \r\ntime Joseph lived in a house on Delor Avenue owned by his brother, John Norbert \r\nRogers (�John�).  John had insurance on the Delor Avenue home from American \r\nMutual Fire Insurance Company of Kentucky (hereinafter, �American Mutual�).   \r\n Heavener filed suit against Joseph and John in Jefferson Circuit Court \r\n(�the trial court�).  She asserted claims arising from the pit bull attack including \r\nstrict liability, negligence per se for violating local laws requiring owners to \r\ncontrol their pets, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.   \r\n John filed an answer to the complaint, but Joseph did not.  Default \r\njudgment was entered against Joseph with damages to be determined at another \r\nhearing.  American Mutual filed an intervening complaint against John, arguing \r\nthat coverage was excluded.   \r\n John filed a motion for summary judgment on Heavener�s claims, \r\narguing he was not liable for the pit bull attack under Kentucky law.  American \r\nMutual also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing coverage was excluded.   \r\n -3- \r\n Following briefing and a hearing, the trial court entered an order \r\ngranting summary judgment in John�s favor and dismissing the complaint against \r\nhim.  The order noted it was not final and appealable since Joseph remained in the \r\naction.  A few days later, the trial court also entered an order dismissing American \r\nMutual�s intervening complaint as coverage issues were now moot due to the entry \r\nof summary judgment in John�s favor.   \r\n Shortly thereafter, Heavener filed a motion to amend the summary \r\njudgment granted in John�s favor to make it final and appealable.  The trial court \r\ngranted this motion in a written order, stating that the summary judgment was \r\namended and made �final and appealable� as of the date of the order so that a \r\nmotion to alter, amend, or vacate could be filed within ten days.  (Record on \r\nAppeal, p. 758.)   \r\n Next, Heavener filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the summary \r\njudgment granted in John�s favor.  The trial court denied the motion to alter, \r\namend or vacate shortly before Heavener filed her appeal.  The order denying the \r\nmotion to alter, amend, or vacate did not state that it was final or that there was no \r\njust cause for delay.   \r\n To sum up, neither the original summary judgment granted in John�s \r\nfavor, the order amending the summary judgment order to supposedly make it final \r\n -4- \r\nand appealable, nor the order denying the motion to alter, amend, or vacate stated \r\nthat there was no just reason for delay.  See CR1 54.02(1).   \r\n CR 54.01 states:  �A final or appealable judgment is a final order \r\nadjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action or proceeding, or a \r\njudgment made final under Rule 54.02.�  CR 54.02(1) states in pertinent part:  \r\nthe court may grant a final judgment upon one or more \r\nbut less than all of the claims or parties only upon a \r\ndetermination that there is no just reason for delay. \r\nThe judgment shall recite such determination and shall \r\nrecite that the judgment is final.  In the absence of such \r\nrecital, any order or other form of decision, however \r\ndesignated, which adjudicates less than all the claims or \r\nthe rights and liabilities of less than all the parties shall \r\nnot terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, \r\nand the order or other form of decision is interlocutory \r\nand subject to revision at any time before the entry of \r\njudgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and \r\nliabilities of all the parties. \r\n \r\n(Emphasis added.)   \r\n The summary judgment granted in John�s favor did not resolve all the \r\nrights of all the parties in the action.  Specifically, it did not resolve Heavener�s \r\nclaims against Joseph.",
+                        "Admittedly, the trial court did resolve American Mutual�s \r\nrights by a separate order dismissing the intervening complaint which was rendered \r\nafter the original summary judgment order and before the order amending the \r\nsummary judgment order.  See CR 54.02(2).  But the trial court had not adjudicated \r\n \r\n1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.   \r\n -5- \r\nall of Heavener�s or Joseph�s rights in the action since damages remained to be \r\ndetermined on Heavener�s claims against Joseph.  So, no order entered in this case \r\nfully adjudicated all the rights of all the parties in the action.  See CR 54.01.   \r\n In addition to none of the trial court�s orders being inherently final \r\nand appealable under CR 54.01 since they did not fully adjudicate all rights of all \r\nparties in the action, none of the trial court�s orders adjudicating less than all the \r\nrights of all parties stated both that the order was final and that there was no just \r\nreason for delay.  So, these orders were interlocutory and subject to revision \r\npursuant to CR 54.02(1).2  \r\n Perhaps it may seem hyper-technical and not in the interest of judicial \r\neconomy to dismiss an appeal from an order which a trial court expressly deems \r\nfinal and appealable simply because there is no statement that there is no just cause \r\nfor delay.  Nonetheless, binding precedent calls for dismissal of an appeal from an \r\norder adjudicating less than all the rights of all the parties in an action when the \r\ntrial court has not determined there is no just reason for delay even when the trial \r\ncourt has deemed its order final and appealable. \r\n \r\n2 Nor does CR 54.02(2) apply here since there has been no judgment fully disposing of \r\nHeavener�s claims against Joseph as damages must still be determined.  See CR 54.02(2) (�When \r\nthe remaining claim or claims in a multiple claim action are disposed of by judgment, that \r\njudgment shall be deemed to readjudicate finally as of that date and in the same terms all prior \r\ninterlocutory orders and judgments determining claims which are not specifically disposed of in \r\nsuch final judgment.�).   \r\n -6- \r\n For example, in Hale v. Deaton, 528 S.W.2d 719 (Ky. 1975), the trial \r\ncourt entered an order denying a motion for modification of an underlying \r\njudgment and stating:  �The Judgment entered herein, and this Order are final and \r\nappealable Orders and Judgment of the Court.�  Id. at 721.  The Kentucky court \r\ndismissed the appeal because the underlying judgment did not adjudicate all rights \r\nof all parties in the action and because the order denying modification did not state \r\nthere was no just cause for delay.  The Kentucky court noted that both statements \r\nthat an order or judgment was final and that there was no just reason for delay were \r\nexpressly required by CR 54.02(1) to permit an appeal from an order or judgment \r\nnot adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in the action.  And it stated that \r\nfailure to make both required statements � of finality and of there being no just \r\nreason for delay � was �fatal.�  Id. at 722.   \r\n Kentucky precedent has long required strict compliance with CR \r\n54.02 requirements to make an otherwise interlocutory order adjudicating less than \r\nall the rights of all the parties in the action final and appealable.  See Peters v. \r\nBoard of Ed. of Hardin Cnty., 378 S.W.2d 638, 639 (Ky. 1964).  We must follow \r\nsuch binding precedent from the Kentucky Supreme Court and its predecessor \r\ncourt, SCR3 1.030(8)(a), despite any arguments that such a strict compliance \r\napproach to CR 54.02 is hyper-technical or not in the interest of judicial economy.   \r\n \r\n3 Kentucky Supreme Court Rules.   \r\n -7- \r\n In short, we dismiss this appeal sua sponte because the appeal is from \r\nan interlocutory order due to lack of strict compliance with CR 54.02 requirements \r\n� specifically the lack of required �no just reason for delay� statement � and \r\nbecause we lack jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders.  See Peters, \r\n378 S.W.2d at 639-40 (dismissing appeal sua sponte as an appellate court may \r\nproperly raise issues about jurisdiction itself and would lack authority to decide an \r\nappeal from an order which �failed to contain the recitals required by CR 54.02 so \r\nas to invest this Court with jurisdiction over the appeal�).   \r\nCONCLUSION \r\n WHEREFORE, the above-styled appeal shall be, and hereby is, \r\nDISMISSED for failure to appeal from a final and appealable order. \r\n \r\n ALL CONCUR. \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\nENTERED: _March 29, 2024___ \r\n \r\n \r\nJUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS \r\n \r\n \r\nBRIEF FOR APPELLANT: \r\n \r\nNolia G. Batey \r\nLouisville, Kentucky \r\n \r\nBRIEF FOR APPELLEE JOHN \r\nNORBERT ROGERS: \r\n \r\nGregory L.",
+                        "Smith  \r\nLouisville, Kentucky"
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2893014",
+                    "parentID": "cb5ee860fa8d6da2dd7d8e732d662bc72f9388059c0e982fcbc59448471e19e5",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "CA - OPINION",
+                    "parentSubtype": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AND ORDER OTHER",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-03-29T09:40:58.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "0a0c4eb3063bc938c38787e4a89139ae5f206b422e9a57123aa659b13016486b",
+                        "caseNumber": "2023-CA-0192",
+                        "caseStatus": "FINAL",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-04-29T19:22:13.000+0000",
+                        "closed": true,
+                        "shortTitle": "KELLEY HEAVENER\r\nV.\r\nJOSEPH CARLISLE ROGERS ET. AL.",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "CIVIL",
+                        "caseClassification": "MATTER OF RIGHT - CIVIL - REGULAR CIVIL",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2023-02-16T05:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                        "courtLevel": "Court of Appeals",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "id": "9bfc9227d63e046f40dae69117c331634b3b8f1a72af340ba9190721749013dc",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2023-CA-0458",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "OPINION AFFIRMING BY JUDGE MCNEILL",
+                "docketEntryType": "CA - OPINION",
+                "docketEntryID": "9bfc9227d63e046f40dae69117c331634b3b8f1a72af340ba9190721749013dc",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "25cc7d9fde54aa44e767a85a333798fcf8895e64370e3ea967b86c8bf0f415d1",
+                "filedDate": "2024-04-19T10:15:10.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3.0,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119530",
+                    "documentID": "7c6d4661ec7cd6274e37e8a85c574121abef15bb667f84b1b4f314616aea29d3",
+                    "documentName": "TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "RENDERED:  APRIL 19, 2024; 10:00 A.M. \r\nTO BE PUBLISHED \r\n \r\nCommonwealth of Kentucky \r\nCourt of Appeals \r\n \r\n    \r\nNO. 2023-CA-0458-MR \r\n \r\nISAAC W. BERNHEIM \r\nFOUNDATION  \r\n \r\nAPPELLANT  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nv.  \r\nAPPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE RODNEY DARREL BURRESS, JUDGE \r\nACTION NO. 19-CI-00762 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\nLOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC \r\nCOMPANY; EAST KENTUCKY \r\nPOWER COOPERATIVE, INC.; AND \r\nKENTUCKY HERITAGE LAND \r\nCONSERVATION FUND BOARD \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nAPPELLEES  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nOPINION \r\nAFFIRMING \r\n \r\n** ** ** ** ** \r\n \r\nBEFORE:  THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. \r\nMCNEILL, JUDGE:  Isaac W. Bernheim Foundation (�Bernheim�) appeals from \r\nan interlocutory judgment finding Louisville Gas and Electric Company (�LG&E�) \r\nhas the right to condemn Bernheim�s property for a natural gas pipeline.  Finding \r\nno error, we affirm.  \r\n -2- \r\n LG&E is a public utility that provides natural gas service in Bullitt \r\nCounty, Kentucky.  To increase supply and facilitate expansion, LG&E is \r\nconstructing an underground natural gas pipeline.  Part of the pipeline runs through \r\nproperty owned by Bernheim, 494 acres of land known as the Cedar Grove \r\nWildlife Corridor (�Simon Tracts�).  LG&E attempted to purchase an easement \r\nfrom Bernheim but when negotiations were unsuccessful, initiated a condemnation \r\nproceeding under the Eminent Domain Act of Kentucky (KRS1 278.502). \r\n Bernheim owns a nature preserve in Bullitt and Nelson Counties.  In \r\n2018, Bernheim purchased the Simon Tracts with grant money from the Kentucky \r\nHeritage Land Conservation Fund (�Fund�).2  As a condition of the grant, \r\nBernheim was required to convey to the Commonwealth �a conservation easement \r\nin perpetuity over all land acquired, in whole or in part, with fund proceeds.�  418 \r\nKAR3 1:050 � 6(1).  Another stipulation was that the land must be maintained for \r\nthe conservation purpose for which it was acquired.  418 KAR 1:050 � 6(1)(b); \r\nKRS 146.560(2). \r\n \r\n1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.  \r\n \r\n2 The grant from the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund provided half the purchase \r\nprice and a grant from the Imperiled Bat Conservation Fund, administered by the United States \r\nFish and Wildlife Service, supplied the balance.  \r\n \r\n3 Kentucky Administrative Regulations.  \r\n -3- \r\n In the condemnation action, Bernheim challenged LG&E�s right to \r\ntake, arguing it lacked authority to condemn property that is statutorily dedicated to \r\npublic conservation use and encumbered by a government-held conservation \r\neasement.4  Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found in LG&E�s \r\nfavor, granting it an interlocutory judgment pursuant to KRS 416.610.  This appeal \r\nfollowed.  \r\n �Since this case was tried before the circuit court without a jury, we \r\nreview the trial court�s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the \r\nlegal issues de novo.�  God�s Center Foundation, Inc. v. Lexington Fayette Urban \r\nCnty. Government, 125 S.W.3d 295, 300 (Ky. App. 2002).  On appeal, Bernheim \r\ndoes not raise the standard challenges to a condemnor�s right to take, such as \r\nnecessity, public use, and reasonable compensation, but instead makes several \r\narguments concerning LG&E�s right to take based upon the existence of the \r\nCommonwealth�s conservation easement.  Specifically, Bernheim argues:  (1) \r\nLG&E cannot condemn property that has been put to a prior public use; (2) \r\nLG&E�s power to condemn is limited to private property; (3) the previous Court of \r\nAppeals� decision did not determine the issues on appeal; and (4) KRS 382.850(2) \r\n \r\n4 Bernheim made other challenges to LG&E�s right to take below, but does not raise them on \r\nappeal; therefore, we do not recite them here.   \r\n -4- \r\ndoes not make a government conservation easement pursuant to KRS Chapter 146 \r\na legal fiction.   \r\n As alluded to above, this is the second time this case has been on \r\nappeal.  In Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund Board v. Louisville Gas \r\nand Electric Company, 648 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Ky. App. 2022), discretionary review \r\ndenied (Aug. 10, 2022), a panel of this Court held that sovereign immunity did not \r\npreclude LG&E from condemning property subject to a state-owned easement.  In \r\nthat appeal, the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund Board (�Board�) was \r\nthe appellant, and Bernheim filed a brief in support of the Board�s position.  The \r\nBoard made essentially the same arguments Bernheim now makes, and our Court \r\nconsidered and rejected them.  We believe Kentucky Heritage is dispositive of the \r\nissues in this appeal; nevertheless, to be thorough, we address Bernheim�s \r\narguments individually.   \r\n Bernheim first argues condemnation is prohibited by the prior public \r\nuse doctrine.  It cites the general rule that �land devoted to one public use cannot \r\nbe taken for another public use in the absence of express legislative authority for \r\nthe taking.�  Jefferson Cnty. By and Through Hollenbach v.",
+                        "South Central Bell Tel. \r\nCo., 555 S.W.2d 629, 632 (Ky. App. 1977).  Bernheim claims the Simon Tracts are \r\nalready devoted to public use because they were purchased with public funds and \r\nmust be maintained for public conservation purposes.  Thus, LG&E cannot \r\n -5- \r\ncondemn the property for another public use because it lacks express legislative \r\nauthority.  Bernheim acknowledges we previously �rejected the argument . . . that \r\nLG&E lacked the power of condemnation under the �prior public use� doctrine[.]�  \r\nIn the prior appeal, we held that �the plain language of KRS 382.850(2) authorizes \r\na statutory right of eminent domain to prevail over a conservation easement \r\nbecause a conservation easement is assumed not to exist upon the exercise of a \r\nstatutory right of eminent domain.  If it is assumed that the Board�s conservation \r\neasement does not exist, then there is no prior public use to impede the exercise of \r\nLG&E�s right of eminent domain.�  Kentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at 89. \r\n Nevertheless, it claims we �misapprehended th[e] significant \r\ndistinction� that the prior public use arises not from KRS 382.850(2), but from \r\nKRS 146.560 and 146.570.  Bernheim seeks to avoid our prior holding by \r\nsidestepping KRS 382.850(2).  Its argument goes like this:  KRS Chapter 146 \r\nrequires property acquired with Fund monies to be maintained in perpetuity for \r\npublic conservation purposes � a public use.  However, the statute does not \r\nreference KRS Chapter 382 or require that this be done through a conservation \r\neasement.  Because KRS Chapter 146 was enacted after KRS Chapter 382, this \r\nomission must be intentional.  The public use arising under KRS Chapter 146 is \r\ndifferent than the one arising under a conservation easement.  Thus, KRS Chapter \r\n382 is simply not relevant.  Since KRS Chapter 146 does not explicitly allow \r\n -6- \r\ncondemnation of land or property interests acquired under its provisions, LG&E \r\nlacks express legislative authority for the taking.  \r\n Though creative, we find its argument unconvincing.  The simple fact \r\nis the conservation easement exists; thus KRS 382.850(2), which governs \r\nconservation easements, applies.  The General Assembly mandated the Board \r\nadminister the Fund and gave them authority to promulgate regulations to \r\naccomplish its purpose.5  Pursuant to 418 KAR 1:050 � 6(1), Bernheim conveyed \r\nto the Commonwealth a conservation easement when it purchased the Simon \r\nTracts with Fund proceeds.  The regulation explicitly states �[t]he conservation \r\neasement shall meet the requirements of KRS 382.800 through 382.860 and ensure \r\nthat lands acquired shall be maintained in perpetuity for the purposes established \r\nin KRS 146.560.�  418 KAR 1:050 � 6(1)(b). \r\n As much as Bernheim would like to distance KRS Chapter 146 from \r\nKRS Chapter 382, the regulation explicitly links the two.  The land LG&E seeks to \r\ncondemn is burdened by a conservation easement and KRS 382.850(2) is \r\napplicable.  �Under KRS 382.850(2), a conservation easement �shall not operate to \r\nimpair or restrict any right or power of eminent domain created by statute, and all \r\nsuch rights and powers shall be exercisable as if the conservation easement did not \r\n \r\n5 Technically, KRS 146.560 states the Energy and Environmental Cabinet �may promulgate \r\nupon recommendation of the board in accordance with the provisions of KRS Chapter 13A \r\nadministrative regulations as are deemed necessary . . . .�  KRS 146.560(2) (emphasis added).  \r\n -7- \r\nexist.��  Kentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at 85-86.  �If it is assumed that the \r\nBoard�s conservation easement does not exist, then there is no prior public use to \r\nimpede the exercise of LG&E�s right of eminent domain.�  Id. at 89. \r\n Bernheim next asserts LG&E�s power to condemn is limited to private \r\nproperty.  It notes LG&E�s authority to condemn comes from KRS 278.502 and \r\nKRS 416.540-416.680, the Eminent Domain Act of Kentucky.  The Act \r\nspecifically defines �condemn� as to �to take private property for a public use \r\nunder the right of eminent domain[.]�  KRS 416.540(1) (emphasis added).  \r\nBernheim further argues KRS 382.850(2) does not enlarge the power of eminent \r\ndomain.  Therefore, because the Act limits condemnation to private property and \r\nKRS 382.850(2) does not expand that power, Bernheim claims LG&E lacks \r\nstatutory authority to condemn a publicly held conservation easement.   \r\n We considered and rejected this argument in Kentucky Heritage.  \r\nThere, we held  \r\n[w]hile LG&E may not have the general power to \r\ncondemn public property under KRS 278.502 and KRS \r\n416.540(1), KRS 382.850(2) expresses the Legislature�s \r\nintention that a conservation easement cannot be used to \r\nimpede the exercise of any statutory power of eminent \r\ndomain that the Legislature has otherwise conferred by \r\nstatute.",
+                        "If the existence of the conservation easement is \r\ndisregarded, as KRS 382.850(2) instructs, then LG&E \r\nwould undoubtedly have the power to condemn the \r\nproperty at issue. \r\n \r\n -8- \r\nKentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at 88.  If the conservation easement is disregarded, \r\nthe Simon Tracts are simply private property � any public property interest \r\ndisappears.  \r\n Bernheim next maintains Kentucky Heritage did not determine the \r\nissues in this appeal.  It rightly notes Kentucky Heritage was limited to whether \r\nsovereign immunity precludes �commencement of condemnation proceedings \r\nagainst the holder of a conservation easement.�  Kentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at \r\n78-79.  But it then reads too much into that language.  Focusing on the word \r\n�commencement[,]� it contends KRS 382.850(2) allows �commencement of an \r\naction for condemnation as against [a] government-held easement but is \r\ninsufficient to allow [the] taking of that interest absent some statutory \r\nauthorization.�  \r\n Although we did not reach the issue of LG&E�s right to take in \r\nKentucky Heritage, we interpreted KRS 382.850(2) as subjecting �a conservation \r\neasement held by a governmental entity . . . [to] eminent domain.�  Id. at 86.  KRS \r\n382.850(2) provides �[a] conservation easement . . . shall not operate to impair or \r\nrestrict any right or power of eminent domain . . . and all such rights and powers \r\nshall be exercisable as if the conservation easement did not exist.�  The statute \r\nauthorizes the exercise of �all . . . rights and powers [of eminent domain].�  Id.  It \r\ndoes not limit exercise to just the commencement of condemnation proceedings.  \r\n -9- \r\nIn sum, while Kentucky Heritage did not specifically address the relevant issue in \r\nthis appeal � whether LG&E has the right to take Bernheim�s property � its \r\ninterpretation of KRS 382.850(2) foreclosed Bernheim�s argument that a \r\ngovernment-held easement cannot be condemned. \r\n Relatedly, Bernheim contends Kentucky Heritage is not the law of the \r\ncase concerning LG&E�s right to condemn the conservation easement.  �The law \r\nof the case doctrine means issues decided in earlier appeals should not be revisited \r\nin subsequent ones.�  Armstrong v. Estate of Elmore, 647 S.W.3d 214, 217 (Ky. \r\n2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  It �designates the principle \r\nthat if an appellate court has passed on a legal question . . . the legal questions thus \r\ndetermined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a \r\nsubsequent appeal in the same case.�  Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. \r\n1982). \r\n Again, while we agree Kentucky Heritage did not determine LG&E�s \r\nright to take Bernheim�s property, its statutory interpretation of KRS 382.850(2) \r\nsettled the legal arguments Bernheim advances on appeal.  Thus, while our \r\nprevious opinion is not the law of the case as to LG&E�s right to take, its analysis \r\nof KRS 382.850(2) is.  We note that even if Kentucky Heritage�s statutory \r\ninterpretation were not the law of the case, we would be persuaded by its reasoning \r\nand analysis.  Regardless, as it pertains to Bernheim�s arguments on appeal, we \r\n -10- \r\nhold that KRS 382.850(2) removes any �issue of the Commonwealth�s ownership \r\ninterest in the conservation easement . . . as an obstacle to the pursuit of \r\ncondemnation proceedings by a party with a statutory right of eminent domain.�  \r\nKentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at 86. \r\n Finally, Bernheim argues KRS 382.850(2) does not make a \r\ngovernment conservation easement under KRS Chapter 146 a legal fiction.  Again, \r\nBernheim disagrees with this Court�s interpretation of KRS 382.850(2) in \r\nKentucky Heritage that �[b]y employing the legal fiction that a conservation \r\neasement does not exist upon the exercise of a statutory power of eminent domain, \r\nthe General Assembly expressed its intention that a conservation easement held by \r\na governmental entity is subject to the exercise of any statutory power of eminent \r\ndomain.�  Kentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at 86.  Because the sole issue on appeal \r\nwas sovereign immunity, it argues this Court �did not delve into the thorny \r\nconstitutional questions raised by a suggestion that the General Assembly could, \r\nby legislative fiat, actually extinguish a conservation easement held by the \r\nCommonwealth of Kentucky.�  Bernheim suggests that KRS 382.850(2) should \r\ninstead be read as a savings clause, doing �nothing more than ordering the \r\nrelationship of eminent domain powers to the existence of such an easement.� \r\n The Board made a similar argument in Kentucky Heritage, claiming \r\n�KRS 382.850(2) merely preserves the right of eminent domain and subjects \r\n -11- \r\nconservation easements to the right of eminent domain[.]�  648 S.W.3d at 86.",
+                        "But \r\nas we noted there, such an interpretation �does not give full effect to the provision \r\nin KRS 382.850(2) that any statutory right of eminent domain �shall be exercisable \r\nas if the conservation easement did not exist.��  Id.  �[A] statute should be \r\nconstrued, if possible, so that no part of its provisions are rendered meaningless.�  \r\nBob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d \r\n488, 492 (Ky. 1998) (citation omitted).   \r\n We believe our analysis in that appeal is conclusive: \r\nIn KRS 382.850(2), the use of the phrase, �all such rights \r\nand powers shall be exercisable as if the conservation \r\neasement did not exist[,]� appears to be a unique \r\nmodification of the Uniform Conservation Easement Act \r\n(UCEA).  The text of the UCEA does not address the \r\nissue of whether a conservation easement can be \r\ncondemned through eminent domain.  However, the \r\npreface to the 2007 version provides that �the Act neither \r\nlimits nor enlarges the power of eminent domain[,]� \r\ninstead leaving �the scope of that power� to �the \r\nadopting state�s eminent domain code and related \r\nstatutes.�  See Nat�l Conf. of Comm�rs on Unif. State L., \r\nPrefatory Note at 4 to Uniform Conservation Easement \r\nAct (1981) (amended 2007).  Unlike other jurisdictions, \r\nthe Kentucky General Assembly did not adopt any \r\nlanguage from the preface to the UCEA concerning the \r\nenlargement of eminent domain. . . . \r\n \r\nThis Court cannot endorse an interpretation that \r\nsimply ignores a portion of the statutory text. . . .  [T]he \r\nGeneral Assembly specifically added these words to the \r\nstatute contrary to the language set out in the preface and \r\ntext of the Uniform Conservation Easement Act and \r\ncomparable statutes enacted by other jurisdictions.  The \r\n -12- \r\nLegislature is presumed to be aware of existing laws \r\nwhen enacting a new statute.  Pearce v. University of \r\nLouisville, by and through its Bd. of Trustees, 448 \r\nS.W.3d 746, 760 (Ky. 2014). \r\n \r\nKentucky Heritage, 648 S.W.3d at 86-87.   \r\n Finally, Bernheim submits that if we hold LG&E does not have the \r\nright to take the conservation easement, we should hold �[LG&E] has no good \r\nfaith basis to take the underlying property encumbered by the conservation \r\neasement, as the conservation easement specifically prevents the development of \r\ngas pipelines on the subject property.�  Because we hold the circuit court did not \r\ncommit any error in granting the interlocutory judgment, we need not address this \r\nargument.  \r\n Based upon the foregoing, Bullitt Circuit Court�s interlocutory \r\njudgment is affirmed.  \r\n \r\n ALL CONCUR.  \r\n \r\n -13- \r\nBRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: \r\n \r\nRandal A. Strobo \r\nDavid A. Spenard \r\nJulia D. Taylor \r\nLouisville, Kentucky \r\n \r\nTom FitzGerald \r\nAshley Wilmes \r\nFrankfort, Kentucky \r\n \r\nBRIEF FOR APPELLEE \r\nLOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC \r\nCOMPANY: \r\n \r\nMonica H. Braun \r\nSteven B.",
+                        "Loy \r\nMary Ellen Wimberly \r\nLexington, Kentucky"
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2896416",
+                    "parentID": "9bfc9227d63e046f40dae69117c331634b3b8f1a72af340ba9190721749013dc",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "CA - OPINION",
+                    "parentSubtype": "TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-04-19T10:15:10.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "25cc7d9fde54aa44e767a85a333798fcf8895e64370e3ea967b86c8bf0f415d1",
+                        "caseNumber": "2023-CA-0458",
+                        "caseStatus": "POST OPINION",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-04-19T10:15:10.000+0000",
+                        "closed": false,
+                        "shortTitle": "ISAAC W. BERNHEIM FOUNDATION\r\nV.\r\nLOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ET. AL.",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "CIVIL",
+                        "caseClassification": "MATTER OF RIGHT - CIVIL - REGULAR CIVIL",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2023-04-13T04:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                        "courtLevel": "Court of Appeals",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "id": "326e875a57465196006a2c6babcbcb050b6a35d9f43be61fa30d1744c58294ea",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2022-CA-1460",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION OTHER",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING BY JUDGE KAREM",
+                "docketEntryType": "CA - OPINION",
+                "docketEntryID": "326e875a57465196006a2c6babcbcb050b6a35d9f43be61fa30d1744c58294ea",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "805d193a810bc0b9427c93fab0d98c7a2030e47fe2cd8e98d9d1b1173297c76e",
+                "filedDate": "2024-04-19T08:00:56.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3.0,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119540",
+                    "documentID": "bff964c7c597ecefe7d881cf4f99da7e73000979851cde45320a0a4710e4be96",
+                    "documentName": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION OTHER",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "RENDERED:  APRIL 19, 2024; 10:00 A.M. \r\nNOT TO BE PUBLISHED \r\n \r\nCommonwealth of Kentucky \r\nCourt of Appeals \r\n \r\n    \r\nNO. 2022-CA-1460-MR \r\n \r\n \r\nGEORGE DIXON AND TINA DIXON  APPELLANTS  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nv.  \r\nAPPEAL FROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE JEREMY MICHAEL MATTOX, JUDGE \r\nACTION NO. 21-CI-00095 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\nSTEVEN TURLEY AND TONYA \r\nRENE TURLEY  \r\n \r\nAPPELLEES  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nOPINION \r\nREVERSING AND REMANDING \r\n \r\n** ** ** ** ** \r\n \r\nBEFORE:  GOODWINE, KAREM, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. \r\nKAREM, JUDGE:  George and Tina Dixon appeal, pro se, from the Bourbon \r\nCircuit Court�s order granting Steven and Tonya Turley�s motion to dismiss the \r\nDixons� action based on claim and issue preclusion.  For the reasons stated herein, \r\nwe reverse the Bourbon Circuit Court�s order and remand for proceedings \r\nconsistent with this Opinion. \r\n -2- \r\nFACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND \r\n The Dixons and the Turleys own adjoining properties in Bourbon \r\nCounty, Kentucky, which share a common boundary line marked by a fence.  The \r\nDixons� property sits at a higher elevation than the Turleys� property, which causes \r\nwater to flow under the shared fence from the Dixons� property to the Turleys� \r\nproperty.   \r\n On February 27, 2018, Ms. Dixon filed a complaint against Mr. \r\nTurley and his son, Steven Austin Clay Turley, in the Bourbon District Court, \r\nSmall Claims Division (the �First Action�).  Ms. Dixon alleged that by filling a \r\nditch on the Turleys� property, the Turleys caused unnatural pooling and mud on \r\nthe parties� boundary line.  Ms. Dixon asserted claims of (1) destruction of \r\nproperty, (2) harassment, (3) emotional distress, (4) interference with the \r\nproductivity of the farm, and (5) interference with the quality of life.  Following a \r\nbench trial on April 10, 2018, the Bourbon District Court entered judgment for the \r\nTurleys.  Ms. Dixon did not appeal the outcome of the First Action. \r\n Less than one year later, on January 15, 2019, George and Tina Dixon \r\nfiled a second action against Mr. Turley in the Bourbon District Court, Small \r\nClaims Division (the �Second Action�).  In their complaint, the Dixons alleged \r\nprivate nuisance based on the following:  \r\n[Mr. Turley] . . . [h]as caused ongoing damages to the \r\nsecondary Fence which is attached to the main fence.  He \r\n -3- \r\nis intentionally pushing the fence out with his shoes.  \r\nThis causes us to have to repair it one or two times a \r\nweek.  We have fencing all around our property.  In the \r\npast ten years no maintenance has been needed to any of \r\nour boundary fences except the continuous weekly \r\nrepairs along the Turley side.   \r\n \r\nOver the past two years we�ve noticed the run off from \r\nour other neighbor�s land backing up on our property.  \r\nUpon closer inspection we discovered the natural flow of \r\nthe water had been blocked by Mr. Turley causing the \r\nwater to stagnate.  When it rained the swirling water dug \r\na hole two and a half feet deep.  We had to add concrete \r\nand rocks to one fence pole in order to protect it from \r\nfurther damage.  In the past year [Mr. Turley] \r\nintentionally added concrete slab (on his property) in the \r\npath of the water and begun packing dirt and gravel on \r\nand around it.  Now the water is backing up on our \r\nproperty again.  Leaving stagnant water and mud in it�s \r\n[sic] wake.  \r\n \r\n On February 12, 2019, the Bourbon District Court held another bench \r\ntrial.  However, the only evidence the Dixons brought to the trial for the Second \r\nAction was the evidence presented to the district court in the First Action.   \r\n Following the trial, the Bourbon District Court again entered \r\njudgment in favor of the Turleys.  The district court noted in its order that the \r\nDixons were �complain[ing] of the same issues that were adjudicated� in the First \r\nAction and that some of the pictures filed at the hearing pre-dated the First \r\nAction�s complaint.    \r\n -4- \r\n The Dixons appealed the district court�s finding in favor of the \r\nTurleys in the Second Action to the Bourbon Circuit Court on February 22, 2019.  \r\nThe circuit court entered an order on March 9, 2020, affirming the district court.   \r\nThe circuit court upheld the district court�s holding concerning the private nuisance \r\nclaim of water diversion and pooling, explaining that the �Dixons did not present \r\nany evidence to support the claim that the value of [their] property was any less \r\nbecause of the alleged damage to the fence or the standing water, beyond mere \r\nallegations.�  In reviewing the evidence supporting the allegation that Mr. Turley \r\ndamaged the fence by repeatedly rubbing his foot on the fence, urinating on the \r\nfence, and running his truck into the fence, the circuit court stated that �[t]here was \r\nno proof that the damage to the fence was by Mr. Turley.�   \r\n Although there was proof that Mr. Turley ran his truck into the fence, \r\nthe circuit court reasoned that the record and testimony at trial revealed Mr.",
+                        "Turley \r\nfully repaired the damage.  Lastly, the circuit court also upheld the district court�s \r\ndismissal of the Dixons� claim for damages associated with �medical costs, weight \r\ngain, emotional distress, and slander� because the Dixons �failed to make a \r\nconnection between these claims� and the Turleys� alleged conduct.    \r\n The Dixons filed the instant complaint against the Turleys on May 17, \r\n2021.  Specifically, the Dixons claimed that Mr. Turley had, since April 2020, \r\n�placed fill materials in, plugged, clogged and diverted natural water ways and \r\n -5- \r\ndrainage ditches which flow upon, onto and across his property which block and/or \r\ndivert the natural flow and drainage of water.�  The complaint further alleged that, \r\nsince April 2020, Mr. Turley had �constructed buildings, altered the construction \r\nof such buildings and/or altered the lots upon which such building are constructed \r\nso as to direct and/or redirect the natural flow of rain and storm water[.]�  They \r\nclaimed that the preceding actions constituted a �constant and continuing trespass� \r\nas well as a �constant and continuing private nuisance.�   \r\n The Dixons also requested injunctive relief from the circuit court \r\nrequiring Mr. Turley �to remove the fill and other obstructions which now block \r\nand/or divert the natural flow of water[;]� �redirect the flow of rain water and \r\nstorm water off of the buildings and building lots on his property� away from the \r\nDixons� property; and to prohibit the Turleys �from making any changes to or \r\nupon their property in the future which blocks, diverts or alters the natural flow of \r\nwater[.]� \r\n Additionally, the Dixons requested a temporary and permanent \r\nrestraining order prohibiting Mr. Turley and his family from communicating with \r\nthe Dixons and entering the Dixons� property.  They further requested damages for \r\nMs. Dixon�s mental and emotional pain and suffering.   \r\n On June 8, 2021, the Turleys filed a motion to dismiss under \r\nKentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (�CR�) 12.02 for failure to state a claim upon \r\n -6- \r\nwhich relief may be granted under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral \r\nestoppel.  The Bourbon Circuit Court granted the motion in an order dated \r\nNovember 10, 2022.  In its order, the circuit court held that the Dixons� claims \r\nwere barred by claim preclusion and issue preclusion.  Thereafter, the Dixons filed \r\nthe present appeal. \r\nANALYSIS \r\n The Dixons� brief deviates from the formatting and substance \r\nrequirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure (�RAP�) by failing to \r\nincorporate preservation statements or citations to the record.  Even pro se litigants \r\n� like the Dixons � are expected to file briefs that demonstrate a �good faith \r\nattempt to comport� with the briefing requirements of RAP 32.  Hallis v. Hallis, \r\n328 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Ky. App. 2010) (considering CR 76.12, the predecessor to \r\nRAP 32). \r\n �Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules \r\nare:  (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief \r\nor its offending portions, [RAP 31(H)(1)]; or (3) to review the issues raised in the \r\nbrief for manifest injustice only[.]�  Id. at 696 (citation omitted).  In this case, \r\nbecause the record is small and we have been able to determine whether the \r\nDixons properly preserved their arguments, we will ignore the deficiency and \r\nproceed with the review. \r\n -7- \r\n We also note that the Dixons� brief includes issues and arguments not \r\nripe for this Court�s review.  Appellate courts are �without authority to review \r\nissues not raised in or decided by the trial court� and may not �consider any claim \r\nor contention which is based upon a portion of the record below that has not been \r\nmade part of the record before the appellate court.�  Norton Healthcare, Inc. v. \r\nDeng, 487 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations \r\nomitted); RAP 25(B).  Because �there can be no error� where an issue was never \r\n�presented to the trial court for decision,� this appeal is limited to whether the \r\nBourbon Circuit Court appropriately applied the doctrine of res judicata.  Deng, \r\n487 S.W.3d at 852. \r\n1. Standard of Review \r\n Turning to the applicable standard of review in this case, CR 12.02(f) \r\noutlines the following for a trial court�s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state \r\na claim: \r\nThe court should not grant the motion unless it appears \r\nthe pleading party would not be entitled to relief under \r\nany set of facts which could be proved in support of his \r\nclaim.  In making this decision, the circuit court is not \r\nrequired to make any factual determination; rather, the \r\nquestion is purely a matter of law.  Stated another way, \r\nthe court must ask if the facts alleged in the complaint \r\ncan be proved, would the plaintiff be entitled to relief? \r\n \r\nJames v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875, 883-84 (Ky. App. 2002) (internal quotation \r\nmarks and footnotes omitted).",
+                        "We review dismissals under CR 12.02(f) de novo, \r\n -8- \r\naccepting the plaintiff�s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable \r\ninferences in the plaintiff�s favor.  Gall v. Scroggy, 725 S.W.2d 867, 868-69 (Ky. \r\nApp. 1987); Pike v. George, 434 S.W.2d 626, 627 (Ky. 1968) (�For the purpose of \r\ntesting the sufficiency of the complaint the pleading must not be construed against \r\nthe pleader and the allegations must be accepted as true.�). \r\n2. Discussion  \r\n The Dixons argue that the Bourbon Circuit Court erred in granting the \r\nTurleys� motion to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel.  Res \r\njudicata is an affirmative defense that �operates to bar repetitious suits involving \r\nthe same cause of action[,]� and involves �two subparts:  1) claim preclusion and \r\n2) issue preclusion.�  Yeoman v. Commonwealth, Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d \r\n459, 464-65 (Ky. 1998).  �Claim preclusion bars a party from re[]litigating a \r\npreviously adjudicated cause of action and entirely bars a new lawsuit on the same \r\ncause of action.�  Id. at 465 (citations omitted).  Alternatively, �[i]ssue preclusion \r\nbars the parties from relitigating any issue actually litigated and finally decided in \r\nan earlier action.  The issues in the former and latter actions must be identical.�  Id.    \r\n Under Kentucky law, �[t]he key inquiry in deciding whether the \r\nlawsuits concern the same controversy is whether they both arise from the same \r\ntransactional nucleus of facts.�  Id.  If the suits �concern the same controversy, \r\n -9- \r\nthen the previous suit is deemed to have adjudicated every matter which was or \r\ncould have been brought in support of the cause of action.�  Id. (citations omitted).   \r\n Claim preclusion applies when three elements are present: identity of \r\nthe parties, identity of the causes of action, and the action must have been resolved \r\non the merits.  Id. (citations omitted).  For issue preclusion to apply, the issues \r\nmust have been (1) the same in both cases, (2) actually litigated in the first case, \r\n(3) actually decided in the first case, and (4) necessary to the court�s judgment in \r\nthe first case.  Id. (citations omitted).   \r\n In this case, the circuit court erred in granting the Turleys� motion to \r\ndismiss based on claim preclusion because, based on the pleadings, the subject \r\nmatter of the subsequent suit was not identical to that in the former suits.  \r\nSpecifically, the �transactional nucleus of facts� that generated the second \r\ncomplaint allegedly occurred after the district court�s judgment in the Second \r\nAction.  As the Kentucky Supreme Court has stated, �[o]rdinarily, when new \r\nevents transpire, a plaintiff would supplement the original complaint under CR \r\n15.04.  But if the plaintiff failed to do so, those claims would not be barred by res \r\njudicata, because the events transpired after the filing of the original complaint.�  \r\nCoomer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 319 S.W.3d 366, 373 (Ky. 2010).   \r\n In their complaint to the circuit court, the Dixons tailored their \r\nallegations of damages, continuing trespass, and continuing nuisance to events \r\n -10- \r\noccurring �[s]ince April of 2020.�  Thus, these constitute new allegations of events \r\nthat �transpired after the filing� of the complaints in both the First Action and \r\nSecond Action and the district court�s judgments.  Id. \r\n Moreover, while the Dixons requested monetary damages in their \r\nsmall claims suit, they requested injunctive relief and restraining orders in their \r\ncomplaint to the circuit court.  Claim preclusion does not apply where: \r\n[t]he plaintiff was unable to rely on a certain theory of \r\nthe case or to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in \r\nthe first action because of the limitations on the subject \r\nmatter jurisdiction of the courts . . . and the plaintiff \r\ndesires in the second action to rely on that theory or to \r\nseek that remedy or form of relief. \r\n \r\nMiller v. Administrative Office of Courts, 361 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Ky. 2011) \r\n(citation omitted).    \r\n Thus, in �drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff�s favor,� \r\nwhile some of the general circumstances of the successive suits were the same, the \r\nspecific, pertinent transactional nucleus of facts was not.  Gall, 725 S.W.2d at 868-\r\n69.  Indeed, the circuit court suit would require the production of different proof, \r\nand the Dixons� requested remedies were unique to the circuit court litigation.  See \r\nArnold v. K-Mart Corp., 747 S.W.2d 130, 132-33 (Ky. App. 1988).  \r\n We next turn to the circuit court�s dismissal based on issue preclusion \r\nor collateral estoppel.  Again, �[f]or purposes of an issue preclusion analysis, we \r\nmust compare the two adjudications to determine if they involve the same \r\n -11- \r\ncontroversy,� that is, �whether they both arise from the same transactional nucleus \r\nof facts.�  Chesley v. Abbott, 524 S.W.3d 471, 483 (Ky. App. 2017) (citation \r\nomitted).",
+                        "As previously discussed, however, because the Dixons� present suit is \r\nalleging action by the Turleys that occurred after the Second Action�s judgment, as \r\nwell as requesting injunctive relief, the issues are not identical and there is no issue \r\npreclusion.     \r\nCONCLUSION \r\n In sum, the circuit court erred in dismissing the Dixons� complaint \r\nunder CR 12.02(f) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  \r\nAccordingly, we reverse the Bourbon Circuit Court�s November 10, 2022, order \r\nand remand for additional proceedings consistent with this decision. \r\n \r\n GOODWINE, JUDGE, CONCURS. \r\n MCNEILL, JUDGE, DISSENTS AND DOES NOT FILE \r\nSEPARATE OPINION. \r\n \r\nBRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: \r\n \r\nGeorge and Tina Dixon, pro se \r\nParis, Kentucky \r\n \r\n \r\nBRIEF FOR APPELLEES: \r\n \r\nNick Nicholson \r\nLilian M.",
+                        "Williams \r\nLexington, Kentucky"
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2896397",
+                    "parentID": "326e875a57465196006a2c6babcbcb050b6a35d9f43be61fa30d1744c58294ea",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "CA - OPINION",
+                    "parentSubtype": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION OTHER",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-04-19T08:00:56.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "805d193a810bc0b9427c93fab0d98c7a2030e47fe2cd8e98d9d1b1173297c76e",
+                        "caseNumber": "2022-CA-1460",
+                        "caseStatus": "POST OPINION",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-04-19T08:00:56.000+0000",
+                        "closed": false,
+                        "shortTitle": "GEORGE DIXON ET. AL.\r\nV.\r\nSTEVEN TURLEY ET. AL.",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "CIVIL",
+                        "caseClassification": "MATTER OF RIGHT - CIVIL - REGULAR CIVIL",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2022-12-14T05:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                        "courtLevel": "Court of Appeals",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "id": "e1eaaecc0e7cf66df95471d8613cc8208551ba3eef91dcf71cdce236ffd65009",
+            "indexID": "150003",
+            "rowMap": {
+                "caseHeader.caseNumber": "2024 CA ADMIN - NON-CONFIDENTIAL OPINION - 002",
+                "docketEntrySubtype": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING",
+                "docketEntryDescription": "2022-CA-1454, 1456, 1457 OPINION AFFIRMING BY JUDGE TAYLOR\r\nD.L.R. v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES",
+                "docketEntryType": "CA - OPINION",
+                "docketEntryID": "e1eaaecc0e7cf66df95471d8613cc8208551ba3eef91dcf71cdce236ffd65009",
+                "caseHeader.caseID": "31d761c655d985dd76d62081b78b6e97e840d9c82da43bac7366b7c491f78d76",
+                "filedDate": "2024-03-01T14:58:47.000+0000",
+                "hasDocuments": true
+            },
+            "score": 3,
+            "detailJson": [
+                {
+                    "components": null,
+                    "tags": null,
+                    "customFields": {},
+                    "dmsDocumentID": "119152",
+                    "documentID": "f44d5375edc553446b47172d7471590704018499b5b62ea1eb3c7a4bc76aff16",
+                    "documentName": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING",
+                    "documentDescription": null,
+                    "documentText": [
+                        "RENDERED:  MARCH 1, 2024; 10:00 A.M. \r\nNOT TO BE PUBLISHED \r\n \r\nCommonwealth of Kentucky \r\nCourt of Appeals \r\n \r\n    \r\nNO. 2022-CA-1454-ME \r\n \r\nD.L.R.  APPELLANT  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nv.  \r\nAPPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE JOE W. HENDRICKS, JR., JUDGE \r\nACTION NO. 22-AD-00022 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, \r\nCABINET FOR HEALTH AND \r\nFAMILY SERVICES; J.D.G.; AND  \r\nJ.D.G., JR., A MINOR CHILD  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nAPPELLEES  \r\nAND \r\n    \r\nNO. 2022-CA-1456-ME \r\n \r\nD.L.R.  APPELLANT  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nv.  \r\nAPPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE JOE W. HENDRICKS, JR., JUDGE \r\nACTION NO. 22-AD-00023 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, \r\nCABINET FOR HEALTH AND \r\nFAMILY SERVICES; J.D.G.; AND \r\nL.L.G., A MINOR CHILD  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nAPPELLEES \r\n -2- \r\n \r\nAND \r\n    \r\nNO. 2022-CA-1457-ME \r\n \r\nD.L.R.  APPELLANT  \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nv.  \r\nAPPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT \r\nHONORABLE JOE W. HENDRICKS, JR., JUDGE \r\nACTION NO. 22-AD-00024 \r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n \r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, \r\nCABINET FOR HEALTH AND \r\nFAMILY SERVICES; J.D.G.; AND \r\nK.D.G., A MINOR CHILD  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nAPPELLEES  \r\n \r\nOPINION \r\nAFFIRMING \r\n \r\n** ** ** ** **  \r\n \r\nBEFORE:  COMBS, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. \r\nTAYLOR, JUDGE:  D.L.R. brings Appeal Nos. 2022-CA-1454-ME, 2022-CA-\r\n1456-ME, and 2022-CA-1457-ME from orders terminating her parental rights to \r\nL.L.G., J.D.G., Jr., and K.D.G. entered September 23, 2022, in the Logan Circuit \r\nCourt.  We affirm. \r\n -3- \r\n The relevant facts are undisputed.  D.L.R. is the biological mother  \r\nand J.D.G. is the legal father1 of L.L.G., J.D.G., Jr., and K.D.G.  L.L.G. was born \r\non May 31, 2019, J.D.G., Jr., was born on April 23, 2020, and K.D.G. was born on \r\nAugust 19, 2021.   \r\n  The Cabinet became involved with D.L.R. and J.D.G. in July of 2020 \r\nwhen it received a report of a social media video showing D.L.R. throwing a cup \r\nof ice in the face of her one-year-old child, L.L.G.  The report also included \r\nconcerns that D.L.R. and J.D.G. were unable to meet the children�s basic needs.  \r\nShortly thereafter, the Cabinet received additional reports that D.L.R. and J.D.G. \r\nwere going into wealthier neighborhoods begging for money.  An investigation \r\nensued, but the Cabinet had difficulty establishing contact with both D.L.R. and \r\nJ.D.G.  A case worker for the Cabinet filed another report in August of 2020 after \r\nobserving D.L.R. walking down a busy road in the heat of the day with L.L.G. and \r\nJ.D.G., Jr.2  The case worker stopped and discovered both children were soiled and \r\nsweating profusely.  The Cabinet immediately negotiated a safety plan with D.L.R. \r\nand J.D.G. that included D.L.R. staying off busy roads with her young children, \r\nJ.D.G. finding employment, D.L.R. and J.D.G. having their water service turned \r\n \r\n1 J.D.G. is the legal father of L.L.G., J.D.G., Jr., and K.D.G. by virtue of causing his name to be \r\nplaced on the children�s birth certificates.  J.D.G. has not pursued an appeal from the order \r\nterminating his parental rights. \r\n \r\n2 At this time, K.D.G. had not yet been born. \r\n -4- \r\nback on, and D.L.R. applying for benefits under the Kentucky Transitional \r\nAssistance Program.  The Cabinet subsequently negotiated a case plan for the \r\nfamily on October 21, 2020.   \r\n Then, on November 2, 2020, the Cabinet received another report \r\nregarding the children.  This report alleged that the children were taken to a \r\ndoctor�s appointment covered in dirt and had broken skin folds on their necks from \r\nlack of bathing.  There were also concerns that J.D.G., Jr., was developmentally \r\ndelayed and not receiving appropriate developmental support.  The report further \r\nstated that J.D.G., Jr., was observed being covered in bug bites and that roaches \r\nwere seen crawling out of his baby stroller.   \r\n The Cabinet attempted a home visit on November 4, 2020, but D.L.R. \r\nand J.D.G. were not there.  A maternal uncle answered the door and allowed the \r\ncase worker inside.  The case worker discovered the home was infested with \r\nroaches, had a strong odor of urine, and still no water service.  When later \r\nquestioned about substance misuse, J.D.G. responded that he had smoked \r\nmarijuana the previous week.  The Cabinet immediately filed a petition and \r\nobtained emergency custody of L.L.G. and J.D.G., Jr.  The Cabinet also filed a \r\ndependency, neglect, and abuse petition alleging the children were abused and/or \r\nneglected pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 600.020. \r\n -5- \r\n A temporary removal hearing was conducted on November 6, 2020.  \r\nL.L.G. and J.D.G., Jr., were placed in the temporary custody of the Cabinet.  \r\nD.L.R. and J.D.G. were ordered to cooperate with the Cabinet and with all \r\ntreatment providers.  On January 21, 2021, an adjudication hearing was held in the \r\nLogan Circuit Court.3  At the hearing, D.L.R. and J.D.G. stipulated that L.L.G. and \r\nJ.D.G., Jr., were neglected as a result of the deplorable conditions in the home.",
+                        "They further stipulated to the failure to meet the children�s basic needs and \r\nadmitted to the incident involving D.L.R. throwing a cup of ice into the face of \r\nL.L.G. \r\n Following a disposition hearing, by order entered March 4, 2021, \r\nL.L.G. and J.D.G., Jr., were committed to the custody of the Cabinet.  The order \r\nalso adopted the Cabinet�s case plan recommendations which included that D.L.R. \r\ncooperate with the Cabinet, complete a psychological assessment, complete a \r\nsubstance abuse evaluation, maintain stable employment, maintain appropriate \r\nhousing, complete parenting classes, and demonstrate newly acquired parenting \r\nskills during visitation. \r\n On August 19, 2021, a third child, K.D.G., was born to D.L.R.  The \r\nCabinet sought and obtained emergency custody of K.D.G. the day after his birth.  \r\nThe Cabinet also filed a dependency, neglect, and abuse petition wherein it was \r\n \r\n3 Logan County does not have a family court division or judge. \r\n -6- \r\nalleged that K.D.G. was neglected and/or abused due to D.L.R. testing positive for \r\nmarijuana at the time of K.D.G.�s birth, the home remaining in a deplorable \r\ncondition, the substance abuse problem of D.L.R., and the lack of progress by \r\nD.L.R. and J.D.G. on the case plan established regarding L.L.G. and J.D.G., Jr. \r\n A temporary removal hearing was conducted on August 25, 2021.  \r\nThe Cabinet was granted custody of K.D.G., and he was placed in the same foster \r\nhome as L.L.G. and J.D.G., Jr.  At the adjudication hearing on November 4, 2021, \r\nD.L.R. and J.D.G. stipulated that K.D.G. was neglected due to D.L.R.�s marijuana \r\nuse while pregnant and the deplorable condition of the home.  A separate \r\ndispositional hearing was waived, and K.D.G. was committed to the custody of the \r\nCabinet. \r\n The Cabinet filed Petitions for Involuntary Termination of Parental \r\nRights as to all three children on April 22, 2022.  An evidentiary hearing was \r\nconducted on June 27, 2022.  By orders and judgments entered September 23, \r\n2022, D.L.R. and J.D.G.�s parental rights were terminated as to L.L.G., J.D.G., Jr., \r\nand K.D.G.  These appeals follow. \r\n Counsel for D.L.R. tendered to this Court an Anders brief and a \r\nmotion to withdraw as counsel for D.L.R.  In support of the motion, counsel \r\ndirected our attention to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and A.C. v. \r\nCabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012) for the \r\n -7- \r\nproposition that withdrawal from representation is justified where the record \r\ndemonstrates that the appeal is wholly frivolous.  Anders, 386 U.S. 738, as adopted \r\nin this Commonwealth by A.C., 362 S.W.3d 361, provides that when counsel \r\ndetermines an appeal to be without merit, he or she may withdraw from \r\nrepresentation and appellant is then given notice and 30 days leave to file a pro se \r\nbrief or other pleading.  By order entered January 18, 2023, this Court granted \r\nD.L.R. 30 days leave to file a pro se brief; however, D.L.R. did not file a pro se \r\nbrief.  Our review proceeds accordingly. \r\n When a party files an Anders brief in a termination of parental \r\nrights case, this Court is not required to address every conceivable argument that \r\nan appellant could have raised on appeal.  A.C., 362 S.W.3d at 370.  This Court�s \r\nreview is analogous to a palpable error review requiring only that we �ascertain \r\nerror which �affects the substantial rights of a party.��  Id.  (quoting Kentucky \r\nRules of Civil Procedure (CR) 61.02).  \r\n In Kentucky, termination of parental rights is granted upon \r\nsatisfaction, by clear and convincing evidence, of a tripartite test.  Cabinet for \r\nHealth and Family Servs. v. K.H., 423 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Ky. 2014).  First, KRS \r\n625.090(1) requires that a child be adjudged neglected or abused as defined in \r\nKRS 600.020.  Second, KRS 625.090(1)(c) requires that termination must be in the \r\nchild�s best interest.  Third, at least one of the conditions set out in KRS \r\n -8- \r\n625.090(2) must be established.  The circuit court�s judgment terminating parental \r\nrights will be reversed only if clearly erroneous.  CR 52.01; Cabinet for Health & \r\nFamily Servs. v. T.N.H., 302 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Ky. 2010).  The court�s judgment is \r\nnot clearly erroneous if supported by substantial evidence.  Id.  \r\n Pursuant to KRS 600.020:  \r\n(1) �Abused or neglected child� means a child whose \r\nhealth or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm \r\nwhen: \r\n \r\n(a) His or her parent, guardian, person in a position of \r\nauthority or special trust, as defined in KRS 532.045, \r\nor other person exercising custodial control or \r\nsupervision of the child:  \r\n \r\n. . . . \r\n \r\n4. Continuously or repeatedly fails or refuses to \r\nprovide essential parental care and protection for \r\nthe child, considering the age of the child;  \r\n \r\n. . . . \r\n \r\n7. Abandons or exploits the child;  \r\n \r\n8.",
+                        "Does not provide the child with adequate care,  \r\nsupervision, food, clothing, shelter, and education \r\nor medical care necessary for the child�s well- \r\nbeing . . . . \r\n \r\n Based on our review of the record before this Court on appeal, the \r\nCabinet presented unrefuted evidence to the circuit court at the evidentiary hearing \r\n -9- \r\nconsistent with the statutory requirements.  The court�s findings were supported by \r\nclear and convincing evidence and thus are not clearly erroneous. \r\n KRS 625.090 provides as follows:  \r\n(2) No termination of parental rights shall be ordered \r\nunless the Circuit Court also finds by clear and \r\nconvincing evidence the existence of one (1) or more of \r\nthe following grounds: \r\n \r\n. . . . \r\n \r\n(e) That the parent, for a period of not less than six (6) \r\nmonths, has continuously or repeatedly failed or \r\nrefused to provide or has been substantially incapable \r\nof providing essential parental care and protection for \r\nthe child and that there is no reasonable expectation of \r\nimprovement in parental care and protection, \r\nconsidering the age of the child; \r\n \r\n. . . . \r\n \r\n(g) That the parent, for reasons other than poverty  \r\nalone, has continuously or repeatedly failed to provide  \r\nor is incapable of providing essential food, clothing, \r\nshelter, medical care, or education reasonably \r\nnecessary and available for the child�s well-being and \r\nthat there is no reasonable expectation of significant \r\nimprovement in the parent�s conduct in the \r\nimmediately foreseeable future, considering the age of \r\nthe child; \r\n \r\n. . . . \r\n \r\n(j) That the child has been in foster care under the \r\nresponsibility of the cabinet for fifteen (15) \r\ncumulative months out of forty-eight (48) months \r\npreceding the filing of the petition to terminate \r\nparental rights[.] \r\n -10- \r\n \r\n As concerns L.L.G., J.D.G., Jr., the circuit court found that the above \r\nthree provisions of KRS 625.090 had been satisfied by the Cabinet.  As concerns \r\nK.D.G., the circuit court found the provisions of KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g) had \r\nbeen satisfied by the evidence presented.  The circuit court then found that \r\ntermination of D.L.R.�s parental rights was in the best interest of L.L.G., J.D.G., \r\nJr., and K.D.G. based upon a thorough analysis of the evidence as required by KRS \r\n625.090(3).  Again, based upon our review of the record, we cannot conclude that \r\nthe circuit court�s findings of fact were clearly erroneous and must agree that it \r\nwas in the best interest of L.L.G., J.D.G., Jr., and K.D.G. to terminate D.L.R.�s \r\nparental rights. \r\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the Logan Circuit Court�s order \r\nentered November 23, 2022, terminating D.L.R.�s parental rights in Appeal Nos. \r\n2022-CA-1454-ME, 2022-CA-1456-ME, and 2022-CA-1457-ME. \r\n ALL CONCUR. \r\nBRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: \r\n \r\nJustin D. Crocker \r\nRussellville, Kentucky \r\n \r\n \r\nBRIEFS FOR APPELLEE \r\nCOMMONWEALTH OF \r\nKENTUCKY, CABINET FOR \r\nHEALTH AND FAMILY \r\nSERVICES: \r\n \r\nLeslie M.",
+                        "Laupp \r\nCovington, Kentucky"
+                    ],
+                    "mimeType": "application/pdf",
+                    "parentSourceID": "2888709",
+                    "parentID": "e1eaaecc0e7cf66df95471d8613cc8208551ba3eef91dcf71cdce236ffd65009",
+                    "parentCategory": "docketentries",
+                    "parentType": "CA - OPINION",
+                    "parentSubtype": "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING",
+                    "parentName": null,
+                    "parentDate": "2024-03-01T14:58:47.000+0000",
+                    "documentAvailable": true,
+                    "caseHeader": {
+                        "components": null,
+                        "tags": null,
+                        "customFields": {},
+                        "caseID": "31d761c655d985dd76d62081b78b6e97e840d9c82da43bac7366b7c491f78d76",
+                        "caseNumber": "2024 CA ADMIN - NON-CONFIDENTIAL OPINION - 002",
+                        "caseStatus": "PENDING",
+                        "caseStatusDate": "2024-01-02T05:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "closed": false,
+                        "shortTitle": "2024 - COURT OF APPEALS - PUBLIC OPINIONS IN CONFIDENTIAL CASES",
+                        "fullTitle": null,
+                        "caseType": "OPINION - CONFIDENTIAL CASE",
+                        "caseClassification": "PUBLIC ACCESS - OPINION - CONFIDENTIAL CASE - NON-CONFIDENTIAL OPINION",
+                        "department": null,
+                        "location": null,
+                        "assignments": null,
+                        "submittedDate": null,
+                        "filedDate": "2024-01-02T05:00:00.000+0000",
+                        "court": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                        "courtLevel": "Court of Appeals",
+                        "caseCategory": "Appellate",
+                        "associatedCases": null,
+                        "caseLocation": null
+                    }
+                }
+            ]
+        }
+    ],
+    "headers": [
+        {
+            "label": "Type",
+            "type": "String",
+            "property": "docketEntryType",
+            "sortProperty": "docketEntryType.raw",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        },
+        {
+            "label": "Subtype",
+            "type": "String",
+            "property": "docketEntrySubtype",
+            "sortProperty": "docketEntrySubtype.raw",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        },
+        {
+            "label": "Description",
+            "type": "String",
+            "property": "docketEntryDescription",
+            "sortProperty": "docketEntryDescription.sort",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        },
+        {
+            "label": "Filed Date",
+            "type": "Date",
+            "property": "filedDate",
+            "sortProperty": "filedDate",
+            "useHighlighting": false
+        }
+    ],
+    "facets": [
+        {
+            "searchFacetName": "Court",
+            "searchFacetField": "caseHeader.court",
+            "searchFacetOrderBy": 1,
+            "searchFacetType": "String",
+            "searchFacetItems": [
+                {
+                    "display": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                    "value": "Kentucky Court of Appeals",
+                    "count": 69,
+                    "selected": true
+                },
+                {
+                    "display": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                    "value": "Kentucky Supreme Court",
+                    "count": 22,
+                    "selected": false
+                }
+            ]
+        },
+        {
+            "searchFacetName": "Case Final",
+            "searchFacetField": "caseHeader.closed",
+            "searchFacetOrderBy": 7,
+            "searchFacetType": "Boolean",
+            "searchFacetItems": [
+                {
+                    "display": "false",
+                    "value": "false",
+                    "count": 69,
+                    "selected": false
+                }
+            ]
+        }
+    ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file