alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 9**  **75**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr ict of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:97

- cr - 00053

- PJM

- 1; 8:10

- cv - 01526

- PJM )

Submitted : September 30 , 2010 Decided: October 12 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE , and KEENAN, Circuit Judge s .
Dismiss ed by un publish ed per curiam opinion
.
Damon Emanuel Elliott , Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman , Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing his “Motion to Review Sentence” as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S .C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). Whe n the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott h as not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Victor E. Manz et al., Respondents, v. James R. Lawley et al., Respondents, and Samuel Goldman, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The appellant was an indispensable party to the proceeding *(Matter of Maniscalco*v. *Power,*4 A D 2d 479, affd. 3 N Y 2d 918). He was not served in the time required by subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law. The service by mail although permitted by the order to show cause could not extend the time for commencing the proceeding and was therefore ineffectual. *(Matter of King*v. *Cohen,*293 N. Y. 435.) Thus the court was without jurisdiction in the proceeding. *(Matter of Ullman*v. *Power,*17 A D 2d 792, affd. 12 N Y 2d 724.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term adjudging the nominating petition valid, etc.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO: Addressees (See Below)

FROM: Director, Risk Management Service

Office of the Secretary

SUBJECT: Amendment to the Redelegation of Authority for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements 

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me from the Secretary by delegation EA/EAR/165, 

certified on March 26, 2008, I hereby amend your respective redelegations of 

authority to perform the functions related to the award, management and oversight of 

formula and discretionary grants and cooperative agreements within your 

programmatic authority, certified on April 11, 2008, to include the authority to 

approve State applications, consolidated State applications, State plans, and 

consolidated State plans for formula grants. 

II. RESERVATIONS

The provisions under the “Reservations” section in the original delegation apply 

to this amendment. 

III. REDELEGATION

The provision under the “Redelegation” section in the original delegation applies

to this amendment.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This amendment is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 
Page 2 - Amendment to the Redelegation of Authority for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements

authority. I ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the 

addressees prior to the date of certification.

 

_________/s/____________

 Phil Maestri

ADDRESSEE LIST:

Deputy Secretary 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

Director, Institute of Education Sciences ◄▬▬▬

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education

Assistant Deputy Secretary and Director for English Language Acquisition

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement

Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 1/15/2010

Certified Date: 2/2/2010

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EAR/ER/6-A
### §1596. Penalties

(a) Any person who knowingly, or as a result either of gross negligence or of a failure to make a reasonable effort to inform himself of the pertinent facts, violates any provision of this chapter or the rules and regulations made and promulgated thereunder shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not more than $1,000, for the first offense, and upon conviction for each subsequent offense not more than $2,000.

(b) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or the rules and regulations made and promulgated thereunder shall forfeit to the United States a sum, not less than $25 or more than $500, for each such violation, which forfeiture shall be recoverable in a civil suit brought in the name of the United States.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §406, 53 Stat. 1286; July 9, 1956, ch. 520, §1, 70 Stat. 508.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1956—Act July 9, 1956, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted "knowingly or as a result either of gross negligence or of a failure to make a reasonable effort to inform himself of the pertinent facts," and added subsec. (b).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1956 Amendment

Act July 9, 1956, ch. 520, §4, 70 Stat. 508, provided that: "The amendments made by this Act [amending sections 1574, 1596, and 1602 of this title] shall be applicable only with respect to violations occurring after the enactment of this Act [July 9, 1956]."

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
Ê,
-
,
ÊEÊ
6
"*
 /

3RVWLUUDGLDWLRQ([DPLQDWLRQ &RDWLQJV

&RUURVLRQ

)UDFWXUHDQG0HFKDQLFDO7HVWLQJ

+LJK7HPSHUDWXUH0HFKDQLFDO

3URSHUWLHV

+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQDQG6WRUDJH

0DWHULDOV

+\GURJHQ6HSDUDWLRQ0DWHULDOV

,UUDGLDWLRQ

0DWHULDOV9DOLGDWLRQ

0LFURVWUXFWXUHDQG3K\VLFDO3URSHU

WLHV

0RGHOLQJ

1HXWURQ5DGLRJUDSK\

1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ

3RVWLUUDGLDWLRQ([DPLQDWLRQ

6\QWKHVLVDQG3URFHVVLQJRI1RYHO

0DWHULDOV

:HOGLQJDQG-RLQLQJ

;5D\5DGLRJUDSK\

&DSDELOLWLHV)DFLOLWLHV

+RW)XHO([DPLQDWLRQ

)DFLOLW\+)()

(OHFWURQ0LFURVFRS\

/DERUDWRU\+)()LVDODUJH

KRWFHOOIDFLOLW\GHVLJQHGIRU

SRVWLUUDGLDWLRQH[DPLQDWLRQ

RIIXHOVDQGPDWHULDOV,WKDV

HTXLSPHQWIRUPDFKLQLQJ

VSHFLPHQVPHWDOORJUDSKLF

VDPSOHSUHSDUDWLRQVFDQ

QLQJHOHFWURQPLFURVFRS\

DQGGHQVLW\DQGGLPHQVLRQDO

VZHOOLQJPHDVXUHPHQWV

+)()DOVRKDVDJUHDWGHDO

RIIXHOVSHFLÀFHTXLSPHQW

7\SLFDOO\PDWHULDOVDUHUH

FHLYHGLQ+)()DQGHYDOXDWHG

PDFURVFRSLFDOO\SULRUWRVL]H

UHGXFWLRQDQGWUDQVIHUWRWKH

(OHFWURQ0LFURVFRS\/DERUD

WRU\IRUGHWDLOHGPLFURVWUXF

WXUDOHYDOXDWLRQ

0DWHULDOV

,UUDGLDWHGVWHHOVDQGFHUDPLFV

6FLHQWLÀF(QJLQHHULQJ

,VVXHV

0LFURVWUXFWXUDOHYROXWLRQ

XQGHULUUDGLDWLRQLUUDGLDWLRQ

LQGXFHGSURSHUW\GHJUDGDWLRQ

LQFOXGLQJHPEULWWOPHQW

LUUDGLDWLRQDVVLVWHG

VWUHVVFRUURVLRQFUDFNLQJ

DQGPDWHULDOVZHOOLQJ

PHFKDQLVPV

6WDII

-,&ROH-*DQ

732·+ROOHUDQ5:LVHQHU

5HFHQW3URMHFWV

 'HYHORSPHQWRIDOOR\V

ZLWKLPSURYHGUDGLD

WLRQUHVLVWDQFHIRU'2(·V

1XFOHDU(QHUJ\5HVHDUFK

,QLWLDWLYH

 'HYHORSPHQWRI*DV

)DVW5HDFWRUPDWHULDOV

IRU'2(·V*HQHUDWLRQ,9

QXFOHDUUHDFWRU

 (YDOXDWLRQDQGGHYHORS

PHQWRIPDWHULDOVIRU

*HQHUDWLRQ,9VXSHUFULWLFDO

ZDWHUUHDFWRUVIRU'2(·V

,QWHUQDWLRQDO1XFOHDU(Q

HUJ\5HVHDUFK,QLWLDWLYH

 8QGHUVWDQGLQJGHIRUPD

WLRQDQGIUDFWXUHEHKDYLRU

LQLUUDGLDWHGVWUXFWXUDO

VWDLQOHVVVWHHOVIRUQXFOHDU

HQHUJ\SODQWRSWLPL]DWLRQ

 $VVHVVLQJORQJWHUP

UDGLDWLRQHIIHFWVLQ(%5

,,VWUXFWXUDOKDUGZDUHDQ

$UJRQQH1DWLRQDO/DERUD

WRU\-DSDQ1XFOHDU&\FOH

'HYHORSPHQW,QVWLWXWH

FROODERUDWLRQ


 ÓÞi`Ñ ÑL>V

7UDQVPLVVLRQHOHFWURQPLFURJUDSKRIKHOLXPEXEEOHVRQDGLVORFDWLRQ

DUUD\LQDOSKDLUUDGLDWHGDOXPLQXP
 Ê,
-
,
ÊEÊ
6
"*
 /

*$


 ÓÞi`ÑwÅ ÑwÅ Ó

&ROODERUDWLRQV

-DSDQ1XFOHDU&\FOH'HYHO

RSPHQW,QVWLWXWHFROODERUD

WLRQRQDVVHVVLQJORQJWHUP

LUUDGLDWLRQHIIHFWVLQ(%5,,

VWUXFWXUDOKDUGZDUH

3XEOLFDWLRQV

 ́,UUDGLDWLRQ%HKDYLRURI

8

0Q$O'LVSHUVLRQ)XHO

(OHPHQWVμ0.0H\HU

7&:LHQFHN6/+D\HV

*/+RIPDQ-RXUQDORI

1XFOHDU0DWHULDOV9RO

S

 ́,UUDGLDWLRQ%HKDYLRURI

81E=U$OOR\'LVSHUVHGLQ

$OXPLQXPμ0.0H\HU

*/+RIPDQ7&:LHQFHN

6/+D\HV-/6QHOJRYH

-RXUQDORI1XFOHDU0DWHULDOV

9ROS

6(0PLFURJUDSKVRIIXHOIUDFWXUHFURVVVHFWLRQVVKRZLQJÀVVLRQJDVEXEEOHV

)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQ

,1/LVD86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\

QDWLRQDOODERUDWRU\RSHUDWHGE\

%DWWHOOH(QHUJ\$OOLDQFH

5LFKDUG1:ULJKW3K'



5LFKDUG:ULJKW#LQOJRY

'RXJODV&&UDZIRUG3K'



'RXJODV&UDZIRUG#LQOJRY

ZZZLQOJRYHQY

HQHUJ\VFLHQFHPDWHULDOV
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Three-Five
Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jeffrey D. Buchanan, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and  
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



| | /s/ Jeffrey D. Buchanan
Jeffrey D. Buchanan
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary, and Treasurer and Director
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 12, 2003
### SUBCHAPTER II—EX-SERVICEMEN
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas D. Karol, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ElkCorp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Intentionally omitted;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. A statement is not required under this paragraph until we file our Form 10-K
for our first year ending on or after November 15, 2004. Date: November 5, 2004
    
    By
    
    /s/ Thomas D. KarolThomas D. KarolChief Executive Officer
11.500 Scope. ( a ) This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for using liquidated damages clauses in solicitations and contracts for supplies, services, research and development, and construction.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to liquidated damages— ( 1 ) For subcontracting plans (see 19.705-7);
( 2 ) Related to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards statute (see subpart 22.3); or
( 3 ) Related to paid sick leave for Federal contractors (see subpart 22.21).
[81 FR 91630, Dec. 16, 2016]
#### JACKSON, Appellant, v. MOORE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Action by Suzette Jackson against De Witt C. Moore.

No opinion. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs, including $10 costs of motion, unless the appellant within 10 days pays the $10 costs of motion and procures the case and exceptions to be signed and filed, and within 20 days thereafter serves three printed copies thereof, in which event motion denied.
§ 766.6 Approving authority for landings at Navy/Marine Corps aviation facilities. ( a ) Except as indicated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the commanding officer of an active Navy/Marine Corps aviation facility may approve or disapprove landings of civil aircraft at his facility when such landing is: ( 1 ) Directly connected with or in support of U.S. Government business (except those listed in paragraph (c) of this section).
( 2 ) In connection with U.S. Government or community interests on an infrequent basis when no adequate civil airport is reasonably available.
( 3 ) By aircraft owned and operated by Navy/Marine Corps Flying Clubs or U.S. Army or Air Force Aero Clubs which are operated as instrumentalities of the U.S. Government.
( 4 ) By aircraft owned and operated by U.S. Government personnel when such use is in accordance with § 766.4(b) (1) and (2).
( 5 ) By civil aircraft either owned or personally chartered by: ( i ) The President or Vice President of the United States or a past President of the United States.
( ii ) The head of any Federal department or agency.
( iii ) A Member of Congress.
( 6 ) By a bailed, leased, or loaned aircraft (as defined in § 766.2) when operated in connection with official business only.
( 7 ) By aircraft owned and operated by States, counties, or municipalities of the United States when used for official business of the owner.
( b ) Except as limited by paragraph (c) of this section, the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe; Chief of Naval Material; Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet; Chief of Naval Air Training; Commander, Pacific Missile Range; Commander, Marine Corps Air Bases, Eastern Area; Commander, Marine Corps Air Bases, Western Area; and Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific may approve civil aircraft use of any active aviation facility under their control. (At overseas locations, aircraft landing authorizations must be in consonance with the provisions of applicable international agreements.)
( c ) The Chief of Naval Operations may approve any of the above requests, and is the only agency empowered to approve all other requests for use of naval facilities by civil and government aircraft, for example: ( 1 ) Applications for use of more than one facility when the facilities are not under the control of one major command.
( 2 ) Application for use of naval aviation facilities when participating in U.S. Government or Department of Defense single-manager contract and charter airlift operations; *i.e.*, Military Airlift Command (MAC) or Military Traffic Management and Terminal Service (MTMTS).
( 3 ) Application for a facility to be used as a regular civil airfield for a community, by either commercial or general aviation.
( 4 ) Requests for use of a facility by foreign civil or government aircraft when: ( i ) Such use is not covered by an agreement between the U.S. Government and the government of the aircraft's registry, or
( ii ) The facility is located in a country other than that in which the foreign aircraft is registered.
#### Edward Spalter, Appellant, et al., Plaintiffs, v. I. J. Morris, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff Edward Spalter appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 28, 1959, adhering to a prior determination vacating a preference in trial which had been granted pursuant to rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules. The preference had been granted on January 10, 1958. Thereafter, an order was entered June 19,1958, vacating the preference. A motion to reconsider the order of June 19, 1958, was denied by order entered January 5, 1959. Subsequently, this court reversed the order of January 5, 1959, and remitted the matter to the Special Term for further consideration, so as to afford plaintiffs *“*a further opportunity to present facts showing whether they are entitled to a preference ” *{Spalter*v. *I. J. Morris, Inc.,*8 A D 2d 747). Following the ensuing hearing, the order appealed from was entered December 28, 1959, adhering to the determination vacating the preference. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
### §1639. Definitions

In this subchapter:

#### (1) Bioengineering

The term "bioengineering", and any similar term, as determined by the Secretary, with respect to a food, refers to a food—

(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and

(B) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.

#### (2) Food

The term "food" means a food (as defined in section 321 of title 21) that is intended for human consumption.

#### (3) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §291, as added Pub. L. 114–216, §1, July 29, 2016, 130 Stat. 834.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Michael Welch, Appellant.

Two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County, both rendered May 25, 1977, affirmed (see *People v Jackson,*46 NY2d 721; *People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Hawkins, *JJ.,*concur.
Exhibit 32.1
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Howard Pinsley,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: February 13, 2004


                                                   /s/ Howard Pinsley
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Howard Pinsley
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                       15
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ INGENIADOR, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. INTERWOVEN, INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

OBJECTIVE CORPORAT ION USA, INC., ORACLE CORPORATION, SAP AMERICA, INC., AND SPRINGCM, INC., Defendants, AND BRIDGELINE DIGITAL, INC., Defendant, AND ALFRESCO SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, AND BLACKBOARD, INC., Defendant, AND EMC CORPORATION, Defendant, AND INFORMATICA CORPORATION, Case: 12-1497 Document: 94 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2012INGENIADOR , LLC V
. INTERWOVEN , INC
. 2 Defendant, AND COMPULINK MANAGEMENT CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND LEXMARK INTERNAT IONAL, INC., Defendant, AND NUXEO CORPORATION, Defendant, AND SDL TRIDION, INC., Defendant.

__________________________ 2012-1497, -1515

__________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in case no. 11-CV-1840, Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E RIngeniador, LLC moves to substitute Eugenio TorresOyola as principal counsel. Cristina Arenas-Solis will remain as of counsel for Ingeniador, LLC. Upon consideration thereof, Case: 12-1497 Document: 94 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2012INGENIADOR , LLC V
. INTERWOVEN , INC
. 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. Eugenio Torres-Oyola and Cristina Arenas-Solis should promptly file amended entries of appearance. F OR T HE C OURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s21 Case: 12-1497 Document: 94 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2012
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3214

_____________________________

AKEEM WATSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

August 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.