alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(November 13, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Franklin, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on August 17,1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Fein, Ross, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance

(Defense Base Act).

As prescribed in 28.309(a), insert the following clause:

Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) (Jul 2014)

(a) The Contractor shall

(1) Before commencing performance under this contract, establish provisions to provide for the

payment of disability compensation and medical benefits to covered employees and death benefits to

their eligible survivors, by purchasing workers’ compensation insurance or qualifying as a selfinsurer under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 932) as extended by

the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C.1651, etseq.), and continue to maintain provisions to provide such

Defense Base Act benefits until contract performance is completed;

(2) Within ten days of an employee’s injury or death or from the date the Contractor has knowledge

of the injury or death, submit Form LS-202 (Employee’s First Report of Injury or Occupational

Illness) to the Department of Labor in accordance with the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 930(a), 20 CFR 702.201 to 702.203);

(3) Pay all compensation due for disability or death within the time frames required by the

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 914, 20 CFR 702.231 and 703.232);

(4) Provide for medical care as required by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

(33 U.S.C. 907, 20 CFR 702.402 and 702.419);

(5) If controverting the right to compensation, submit Form LS-207 (Notice of Controversion of Right

to Compensation) to the Department of Labor in accordance with the Longshore and Harbor

Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 914(d), 20 CFR 702.251);

(6) Immediately upon making the first payment of compensation in any case, submit Form LS-206

(Payment Of Compensation Without Award) to the Department of Labor in accordance with the

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 914(c), 20 CFR 702.234);

(7) When payments are suspended or when making the final payment, submit Form LS-208 (Notice

of Final Payment or Suspension of Compensation Payments) to the Department of Labor in

accordance with the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 914(c) and (g),

20 CFR 702.234 and 702.235); and

(8) Adhere to all other provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act as

extended by the Defense Base Act, and Department of Labor regulations at 20 CFR Parts 701 to 704.

(b) For additional information on the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

requirements see http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lsdba.htm.

(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all

subcontracts to which the Defense Base Act applies.

(End of clause)
Parent topic: 52.228 [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17821-17822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0097 and DOT-OST-2014-0098]

Applications of Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc. for 
Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2015-3-18) Dockets DOT-
OST-2014-0097 and DOT-OST-2014-0098

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Jet 
Aviation Flight Services, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and awarding it 
certificates of public convenience and necessity to engage in 
interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, property 
and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
April 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0097 and DOT-OST-2014-0098 and addressed to U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West

[[Page 17822]]

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon 
the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauralyn Remo, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

Brandon M. Belford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-07564 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 4910-9X-P
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ParticleDrilling Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jim B. Terry, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ JIM B. TERRY          |             |   |
|---------------------------|------------------|--------|
| Jim B. Terry              |             |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |             |   |
| * *                  |             |   |
| Date:                     | February 6, 2007 |   |
|                           |                  |        |  |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Particle DrillingTechnologies, Inc. and will be retained by Particle DrillingTechnologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KATHRYN DIRKS,

LINDSEY HOSFORD,

NIKKI NICHOLS, and

RASHON BOHANNON

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 

 Case No.: 4:20-cv-00581-RH-MAF

MEDIATION REPORT

(Partial Resolution)

The parties to the above cause submitted their issues to mediation on June 9, 2021.

Plaintiff, Nikki Nichols and Defendant resolved their issues. The remaining Plaintiffs, Kathryn 

Dirks, Lindsey Hosford, and Rashon Bohannon and Defendant reached an impasse. 

/s/ Laura Beth Faragasso

LAURA BETH FARAGASSO

Florida Bar No. 654604

O’STEEN & O’STEEN, P.L.

2900 East Park Ave.

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Email: lb@osteenosteen.com

(850) 877-1028

Mediator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

served by electronic email via the CM/ECF System to all counsel of record, on this 10th day of 

June, 2021.

/s/ Laura Beth Faragasso

Attorney
#### HELMER, Respondent, v. REED et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 16, 1906.)

Action by Isaac N. Helmer against George T. Reed and another.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2574 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club driver heads. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club driver 

heads. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GOLF CLUB DRIVER HEADS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.95.12 Golf club driver heads of titanium, each with an aluminum hosel insert and a 

plasma welded face plate, 

and with 10.5 degree loft 

(provided for in subheading 

9506.39.00) ......................... Free No Change No Change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 2574 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cr-169-WKW

 )

CLIFF JOHNSON, ) 

DEMETRIA MILLS and )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the government’s Motion to Substitute Counsel (Doc. # 565), it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

DONE this 21st day of February, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 569 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr3012LAC

RAY ANTHONY WILLIAMS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 28, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 5/22/2008 Doc.# 792

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 29

th day of

July, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) At sentencing, the defendant was held accountable for 25 kilograms of cocaine

base which ultimately resulted in a base offense level of 38. Pursuant to

Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table at §2D1.1

assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of cocaine base.

Since the defendant’s base offense level is unchanged, he is not eligible for any

reduction in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 706. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 817 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 75.44 When application rejected or withdrawn.

When an application for inspection is rejected in accordance with § 75.13 or withdrawn in accordance with § 75.14, the applicant will be required to pay applicable fees for the time used by an inspector and other expenses incurred in connection with such application prior to its rejection or withdrawal.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 51072 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Esteban Quinonez -**  **Quinonez,** Defendant
— Appellant **, consolidated with** 

**_____________** No. 22 - 51079

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Esteban Valentin Quinonez -**  **Quin onez,**  Defendant
— Appellant **.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 4, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-51072 Document: 00516739118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023No. 22 - 51072 c/w No. 22 - 51079

2 **_____________________________** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:22 - CR - 633 - 1, 7:21 - CR - 323 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Esteban Valentin Quinonez - Quinonez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) . He also appeals the district court’s order revoking the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the revocation or revocation sentence, he has abandoned any challenge to that order . See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224 - 25 (5th Cir. 1993). For the first time o n appeal, Quinonez - Quinonez argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the distri ct court enhanced his sentence under § 1326(b) based on the fact of a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He raises the issue to preserve it for further review and has filed an unopposed mo tion for summary disposition, correctly conceding that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Because his argument is foreclosed, summary dispo sition is appropriate . S ee Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) . Accordingly, Quinonez - Quinonez’s motion for summary

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. Case: 22-51072 Document: 00516739118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023No. 22 - 51072 c/w No. 22 - 51079

3 disposition is **GRANTED,** and the district court’s judgment s are **AFFIRMED.** Case: 22-51072 Document: 00516739118 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 5:98cr36-SPM

NATHAN GAMBLES,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER FINDING GOOD CAUSE

This cause comes before the Court on the limited remand from the Court

of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, to determine whether Gambles’ untimely notice of

appeal was the result of excusable neglect or good cause. Doc. 391.

The order being appealed is the Order Regarding Motion for Sentence

Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). It was entered on the docket on

April 25, 2008. Doc. 383. Gambles’ notice of appeal was due ten days after

entry of the order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(I). The ten-day period excludes

weekends and holidays. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a). Taking these two rules together,

Gambles’ notice of appeal was required to be filed on or before Friday, May 9,

2008. 

The certificate of service shows that Gambles’ notice of appeal was

mailed to the Court on Monday, May 12, 2008. Doc. 385. The notice of appeal

Case 5:98-cr-00036-RH Document 392 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1

 If Gambles used the internal legal mail system at his institution to send

his notice of appeal, then May 12, 2008, is the date that is notice of appeal was

filed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). This would still make the notice of appeal late by one

day (weekend excluded), as it was due on Friday, May 9, 2008, and was not filed

until Monday, May 12, 2008.

CASE NO.: 5:98cr36-SPM

was received and filed with the Court on Wednesday, May 14, 2008.1 Doc. 385.

Gambles explained in his notice of appeal that the Order Regarding

Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) was “sent to

another prison and by the time [he] got the order the 10 days passed by.” Doc.

385. A review of the Court’s records does not conclusively confirm Gambles’

statement, but it does provide strong support. According to the clerk, there is no

record in the clerk’s pro se mail log of the Order being sent to Gambles. The

Order was, however, sent to the Bureau of Prisons. Given the circumstances,

the Court will credit as true Gambles’ statement that the Order was sent to

another prison and received by him after the 10 days for appeal had passed. 

The Court finds that Gambles has established good cause under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(b)((4) for extension of the time until May 14, 2008, to file

his notice of appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Gambles’ notice of appeal (doc. 385) is

accepted as timely filed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cr-00036-RH Document 392 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DAVID BEVERLY,

Petitioner, 

vs. 5:04-CV-014-SPM

JACK SAPP, et al.,

Respondents

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 18) filed July 27, 2006. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. 

Petitioner filed his objections on August 14, 2006 (doc. 19).

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the magistrate did not fail to recognize the

concepts of either estoppel or res judicata; instead, he recognized their

inapplicability to this case. As to Petitioner’s objection regarding the magistrate’s

findings of credibility, those findings are entitled to great deference unless it

Case 5:04-cv-00014-SPM-AK Document 20 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

appears that the magistrate’s conception of the facts is “unbelievable.” United

States v. Anderson, 131 Fed. Appx. 212 (11th Cir. 2005). Because that is not the

case here, this Court defers to the magistrate’s credibility findings.

Finally, Petitioner objects to what he believes is an erroneous statement

by the magistrate that the petition contained only state claims. What the

magistrate actually said was, “To the extent that Petitioner’s claims are based

purely on state law, habeas relief is unavailable . . . .” See doc. 18 at 8. The

magistrate went on to examine Petitioner’s federal claims and found them to be

without merit. See doc. 18 at 8. The Court finds no error in this or any other

conclusion contained in the report and recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 18) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is hereby denied.

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this sixteenth day of August, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00014-SPM-AK Document 20 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT DURELL BENJAMIN 

FLINTROY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:21-cv-9-AW-MAF

GAINESVILLE AUTOMOTIVE 

MANAGEMENT LLC,

Defendant.

 

____________________________________/

JUDGMENT

This case is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorney's 

fees and costs.

May 13, 2022

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/ KELLI MALU Date Deputy Clerk: Kelli Malu

Case 1:21-cv-00009-AW-GRJ Document 44 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06cr169-WKW

)

KOWOSKY TYWAN CHRISTIAN )

CHRISTOPHER IMAN ULMER )

DARRYL LAMONT BROWN )

DARNELL MONTREZE BROWN )

RODRIGEZ CHILDRES )

ROGER WALTON )

JAMES EARL HUBBARD )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

WILONT TIMOTHY BARNETT )

ORDER

For good cause, it is

ORDERED that the pretrial conference previously scheduled in this case for

April 4, 2007, be and hereby is rescheduled for 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 2007 in

Courtroom 5B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse

Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. 

DONE, this 12th day of March, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 121 Filed 03/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
52.216-32 Task-Order and Delivery-Order	Ombudsman.       As prescribed	in 16.506(j),	insert the following clause:          Task-Order and	Delivery-Order Ombudsman (Sept 2019)                                       (a) In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 4106(g), the Agency has designated the following task-order and delivery-order Ombudsman for this contract. The Ombudsman must review complaints from the Contractor concerning all task-order and delivery-order actions for this contract and ensure the Contractor is afforded a fair opportunity for consideration in the award of orders, consistent with the procedures in the contract.  _____________ [*Contracting Officer to insert name, address, telephone number, and email address for the Agency Ombudsman or provide the URL address where this information may be found.*]                                          (b)                    						            Consulting	an ombudsman does not alter or postpone the timeline for any other	process (e.g., protests).                                          (c)                    						            Before	consulting with the Ombudsman, the Contractor is encouraged to first	address complaints with the Contracting Officer for resolution.	When requested by the Contractor, the Ombudsman may keep the identity	of the concerned party or entity confidential, unless prohibited	by law or agency procedure.                                 (End of clause)          *Alternate I*                (Sept 2019).	As prescribed in 16.506(j), add the following	paragraph (d) to the basic clause.             (d)	Contracts used by multiple agencies.             (1)	This is a contract that is used by multiple agencies. Complaints	from Contractors concerning orders placed under contracts used by	multiple agencies are primarily reviewed by the task-order and delivery-order	Ombudsman for the ordering activity.             (2) The ordering activity has designated the following task-order and delivery-order Ombudsman for this order:  ____________  [*The ordering activity's contracting officer to insert the name, address, telephone number, and email address for the ordering activity's Ombudsman or provide the URL address where this information may be found.*]             (3) Before consulting	with the task-order and delivery-order Ombudsman for the ordering	activity, the Contractor is encouraged to first address complaints	with the ordering activity's Contracting Officer for resolution.	When requested by the Contractor, the task-order and delivery-order	Ombudsman for the ordering activity may keep the identity of the concerned	party or entity confidential, unless prohibited by law or agency	procedure.    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1234

_____________________________
M ERIENNE B LAKE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Bruce R. Anderson, Jr. , Judge

. February 25, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Merienne Blake, pro se
, A ppellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.