alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT GARY MEHARG, a South Carolina Individual; PAMELA MEHARG, a South Carolina Individual, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 96-1074 FREDDY POZNICK, a South Carolina Individual; SUSAN POZNICK, a South Carolina Individual, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1387-8-3) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 11, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELSymmes Watkins Culbertson, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Stephen Welch, WELCH & CRAIN, L.L.C., Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellants, Susan and Freddy Poznick, appeal the jury's verdictsfinding them liable for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) (1994), and the trial court's order denying their FED. R. CIV. P. 59 motion and granting the Appellees' motion for attorney's fees. After the jury was dismissed, the Poznicks moved for a new trial asserting that the jury's verdicts were fatally inconsistent, and that the trial court had erroneously instructed the jury concerning damages. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The Poznicks failed to raise the issue of consistent verdicts before the jury was discharged; thus, they waived their right to raise this issue on appeal. See White v. Celotex Corp. , 878 F.2d 144, 146 (4th Cir. 1989). Moveover, the Poznicks waived their right to challenge the trial court's supplemental instruction in response to the jury's question, "[d]o we have to award ten thousand dollars?" When asked by the court whether they had any objections to the court's answer,"[y]ou may award zero damages or you may award ten thousand dollars damages," counsel replied, "[n]one from the defense, your honor." Additionally, our review of the instructions given by the court reveals that they, "construed as a whole, and in light of the wholerecord, adequately informed the jury of the controlling legal principles without misleading or confusing the jury." Spell v. McDaniel , 824 F.2d 1380, 1395 (4th Cir. 1987).Accordingly, the jury's verdicts and the district court's order denying the Poznicks' Rule 59 motion for a new trial and granting the Mehargs' motion for attorney's fees are affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
|   | (i) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended      December 31, 2008 (the “Form      10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C.      78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated:      March 16, 2009 |
|--------|----------------------------|

|                         |
|------------------------------|
| /S/ D. FRANK      HARRISON   |
|  D.      Frank Harrison |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY ELEV

 774.52

 774.28

 774.03

 773.76

 773.82

 773.79

 774.02

 774.12

 774.01

 773.80

 773.51

 773.06

 772.63

 772.20

 771.71

 771.22

 770.76

 770.33

 771.29

 773.76

 774.84

 775.34

 775.56

 775.61

 775.54

 775.30

 774.80

 774.16

 4,178

 4,161

 4,142

 4,122

 4,127

 4,124

 4,141

 4,149

 4,141

 4,125

 4,104

 4,070

 4,039

 4,008

 3,972

 3,937

 3,904

 3,873

 3,942

 4,122

 4,202

 4,240

 4,257

 4,260

 4,255

 4,237

 4,199

 4,152

STORAGE

-44

-17

-19

-20

+5

-3

+17

+8

-8

-16

-21

-34

-31

-31

-36

-35

-33

-31

+69

+180

+80

+38

+17

+3

-5

-18

-38

-47

CHANGE

11

11

10

12

10

10

34

29

21

17

16

13

14

14

12

12

13

14

65

121

70

49

39

32

27

24

22

17

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 33

 20

 20

 22

 7

 12

 25

 25

 25

 25

 27

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 33

 41

 41

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2002 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 13, 2002

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -70 739 0 776

ACRE-FEET -70 1,466 0 1,539

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,539

 1,539

 4,222

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

Table 7
§ 683.820 What authority does the Administrative Law Judge have in ordering relief as an outcome of an administrative hearing? ( a ) In ordering relief the ALJ has the full authority of the Secretary under WIOA, except as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) In grant selection appeals of awards funded under WIOA title I, subtitle D: ( 1 ) If the Administrative Law Judge rules, under § 683.800, that the appealing organization should have been selected for an award, the matter must be remanded to the Grant Officer. The Grant Officer must, within 10 working days, determine whether the organization continues to meet the requirements of the applicable solicitation, whether the funds which are the subject of the ALJ's decision will be awarded to the organization, and the timing of the award. In making this determination, the Grant Officer must take into account disruption to participants, disruption to grantees, and the operational needs of the program.
( 2 ) If the Administrative Law Judge rules that additional application review is required, the Grant Officer must implement that review and, if a new organization is selected, follow the steps laid out in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to determine whether the grant funds will be awarded to that organization.
( 3 ) In the event that the Grant Officer determines that the funds will not be awarded to the appealing organization for the reasons discussed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an organization which does not have an approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement will be awarded its reasonable application preparation costs.
( 4 ) If funds are awarded to the appealing organization, the Grant Officer will notify the current grantee within 10 days. In addition, the appealing organization is not entitled to the full grant amount but only will receive the funds remaining in the grant that have not been obligated by the current grantee through its operation of the grant and its subsequent closeout.
( 5 ) In the event that an organization, other than the appealing organization, is adversely effected by the Grant Officer's determination upon completion of the additional application review under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, that organization may appeal that decision to the Office of Administrative Law Judges by following the procedures set forth in § 683.800.
( 6 ) Any organization selected and/or funded under WIOA title I, subtitle D, is subject to having its award removed if an ALJ decision so orders. As part of this process, the Grant Officer will provide instructions on transition and closeout to both the newly selected grantee and to the grantee whose position is affected or which is being removed. All awardees must agree to the provisions of this paragraph (b) as a condition of accepting a grant award.
January 19, 2016 

Andrew Stegmeyer

Thunderlab Digital Media, LLC.

4430 N. Damen Ave.

Chicago, IL 60625 

Docket: FAA-2015-5480

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thunderlab Digital Media, LLC. is formally requesting to operate the following UAV(s): 

• DJI Phantom 3 Professional 

• Multi Rotor (Quadcopter) 

• Total Weight Including Battery, Propellers & Payload: 1280 Grams 

• Power Source: Lithium-Ion Intelligent Flight Battery (PH3-4480 mAh- 15.2 V) 

• DJI Inspire 1 

• Multi Rotor (Quadcopter) 

• Total Weight Including Battery, Propellers & Payload: 2935 Grams 

• Power Source: Lithium-Ion Intelligent Flight Battery (TB48-5700 mAh - 22.8 V) 

Regards,

Andrew Stegmeyer

4430 N. DAMEN AVE. | CHICAGO, IL 60625| 847.529.7054 | ANDY@THUNDERLAB.COM

FROM THE DESK OF 

THUNDERLAB DIGITAL MEDIA, LLC.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         113,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,821,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,280,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,299,802
<PP&E>                                      26,105,315
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,163,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,927,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,318,882
<BONDS>                                      9,239,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,512,185
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,799,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,927,865
<SALES>                                     22,820,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,820,998
<CGS>                                       16,946,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,965,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (169,589)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             343,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,681,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,251,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,430,008
<DISCONTINUED>                               2,430,008
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,430,008
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 731.32

 731.34

 731.36

 731.37

 731.37

 731.39

 731.40

 731.41

 731.42

 731.43

 731.45

 731.46

 731.48

 731.50

 731.53

 731.55

 731.51

 731.40

 724.91

 724.94

 724.97

 724.99

 725.02

 725.04

 725.06

 721.87

 719.28

 719.33

 719.51

 719.69

 1,632

 1,633

 1,633

 1,634

 1,634

 1,635

 1,635

 1,636

 1,636

 1,636

 1,637

 1,638

 1,639

 1,640

 1,641

 1,642

 1,640

 1,635

 1,369

 1,371

 1,372

 1,373

 1,374

 1,375

 1,375

 1,254

 1,160

 1,162

 1,168

 1,175

STORAGE

+1

+1

+0

+1

+0

+1

+0

+1

+0

+0

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

-2

-5

-266

+2

+1

+1

+1

+1

+0

-121

-94

+2

+6

+7

CHANGE

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

-1

-3

-20

1

1

1

1

1

0

-5

-30

1

3

4

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 114

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 56

 17

 0

 0

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2018 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 26, 2019

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -456 -35 0 187

ACRE-FEET -456 -69 0 371

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 371

 371

 1,631

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0486

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

RANDY JOE FISH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 29 2024

05/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0486
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.01


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Cornerstone
Fund II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President,
Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.






By:  /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:  President

Date:   August 16, 2004
#### REVELL, Respondent, v. REVELL, Appellant.

(241 N. W. 746.)

(File No. 7231.

Opinion filed March 29, 1932.)

*Francis J. Parker,*of Deadwood, for Appellant.

*Rice & Betteiheim*and *Hayes & Hayes,*all of Deadwood, for Respondent.

RUDOLPH, J.

By decree of the circuit court of Lawrence county, entered on March 17, 1916, the plaintiff and defendant *630were ¡divorced. The divorce was granted the plaintiff (the husband) for an offense of the defendant (the wife). The decree awarded the defendant the custody of three minor children. There was also a provision in the decree providing- that the plaintiff pay to the defendant a certain sum of money each month. This provision of the decree providing for the monthly payment is ambiguous, in that it is susceptible of being construed as follows: First, that the monthly payment, provided therein, should be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant until the children of the parties reach their majority; second, that the monthly payment should be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant until the defendant remarries, regardless of the facts of the minority of the children. The plaintiff made the monthly payments, provided for in the decree, until the youngest child of the parties became of age on the 26th day of February, 1930. The plaintiff refused to make any further payments. This proceeding was started before the same trial judge who entered the decree of divorce, and there was issued, herein, an order directed to the plaintiff, ordering him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for his failure to continue the monthly payment to the defendant. The defendant has not remarried. The trial court after a hearing entered an order exonerating the plaintiff “from all contempt in the premises.” The trial court determined that the decree provides for the monthly payment to the defendant only until the majority of the children, and that the plaintiff had fully complied with the terms of the decree. The defendant appealed.

This is a contempt proceeding. The provision of the decree which is the basis of the alleged contempt is ambiguous. The trial court, who entered the decree and against whom the contempt is alleged to have been committed, has placed upon the ambiguous portion of the decree the same construction as the plaintiff. The decree is reasonably susceptible of the construction placed upon it by the plaintiff and the trial court. This being true, there is no basis for the alleged contempt.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

CAMPBELL, P. J., and ROBERTS and WARREN, JJ„ concur.

POLLEY, J., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 -- THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR
THE 26 WEEKS ENDED JULY 31, 1999, AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JULY 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001060232
<NAME> Payless Shoesource, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         205,300<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F2>
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,200<F3>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F3>
<INVENTORY>                                    348,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               586,900
<PP&E>                                         940,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 449,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,113,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,700
<BONDS>                                        126,700<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     727,600<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,113,300
<SALES>                                      1,456,800<F6>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,456,800
<CGS>                                          982,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  982,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,600
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.71<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.70<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes cash equivalent securities.
<F2>Any "securities" are shown under "Cash".
<F3>Receivables are net after deduction of allowances.
<F4>Consists of Capital Lease Obligations plus Long-Term Debt.
<F5>Reflects Retained Earnings and Additional Paid In Capital.
<F6>Reflects net sales.
<F7>Expressed in dollars.
</FN>


</TABLE>
J. J.

'i-42111151OMMki MEM judgment of conviction or sentence. NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330; NRS

34.724(2)(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Gibbons J. Douglas Saitta cc: Hon. Steven P. Elliott, District Judge Ferri11 Joseph Volpicelli Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 130.66

 130.72

 130.78

 130.82

 130.60

 130.47

 130.56

 130.54

 130.49

 130.52

 130.50

 130.46

 130.43

 130.54

 130.59

 130.62

 130.70

 130.74

 130.58

 130.66

 130.65

 130.72

 130.81

 130.78

 130.82

 130.79

 130.64

 130.76

 130.77

 130.72

 651

 658

 665

 669

 644

 630

 640

 637

 632

 635

 633

 629

 626

 637

 643

 646

 656

 660

 642

 651

 650

 658

 668

 665

 669

 666

 649

 663

 664

 658

STORAGE

+10

+7

+7

+4

-25

-14

+10

-3

-5

+3

-2

-4

-3

+11

+6

+3

+10

+4

-18

+9

-1

+8

+10

-3

+4

-3

-17

+14

+1

-6

CHANGE

162

159

158

156

154

178

198

202

210

209

209

219

229

248

277

299

320

335

346

365

369

379

364

354

382

421

440

442

430

403

INFLOW

 80

 79

 78

 78

 78

 78

 77

 77

 77

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 76

 77

 77

 77

PUTAH

 76

 75

 75

 75

 88

 106

 115

 126

 135

 131

 134

 144

 154

 165

 197

 220

 238

 256

 278

 283

 293

 298

 282

 279

 303

 346

 372

 357

 351

 327

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

C.F.S.

 .21

 .18

 .24

 .24

 .22

 .37

 .33

 .26

 .16

 .03

 .04

 .16

 .15

 .21

 .30

 .35

 .35

 .26

 .31

 .30

 .32

 .24

 .15

 .22

 .36

 .30

 .29

 .17

 .25

 .46

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .08

 .23

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .17

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2016 RUN DATE: 05/02/2016

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +17 8,617 6,279 2,301 29 7.43 .56

ACRE-FEET +17 17,092 12,454 4,564 58

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 4,564

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 12,454

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .56

JULY 1, 2015 20.08

 641

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00777

- CV

Susan Clouthier and Clouthier Law, PLLC , Appellant s

v.

Vernard Brown, Jr. , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on November 9, 2023 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s order

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order and remands the case to

the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion

. B ecause appell ee is

indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.