alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Phillip TELEMAQUE, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-31001 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 15, 2017

Michael Phillip Telemaque, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Phillip Telemaque, formerly federal prisoner # 52332-004, was convicted of four counts of failing to depart and was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Telemaque filed a pleading in which he argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement lacks jurisdiction to remove him. The district court construed his pleading as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denied it. Telemaque appeals that ruling.

The district court did not err in dismissing the portion of Telemaque’s pleading that challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Telemaque’s challenge to the validity of his order of removal, and the district court did not err in dismissing this portion of Tele-maque’s pleading. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); *Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enf't,*426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005). We need not decide whether Telemaque appropriately sought to challenge his detention under *Zadvydas v. Davis,*533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), because he offers no meaningful argument on appeal.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Telemaque’s motions for release on bail pending appeal, appointment of counsel, supplementation of the record with the record of his underlying criminal case, as well as his motion for punitive damages and unconstitutional detention are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Stephan LABOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3868

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 150 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Workers’ Memorial Day 

as a Federal holiday. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. NORCROSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Workers’ 

Memorial Day as a Federal holiday. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Workers’ Memorial 

5 Day’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WORKERS’ MEMORIAL DAY. 

7 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

8 amended by inserting after the item relating to the Birth9 day of Martin Luther King, Jr., the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 150 IH

1 ‘‘Workers’ Memorial Day.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Stanley W. Maziejka, Respondent, v Deborah A. Fennelly, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 668]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Hall, J.), entered November 27, 2002, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation.

The parties are the parents of Noah, born in 1997. Pursuant to a Family Court order issued in 1999, the parties shared joint and residential custody, the child being transferred midweek. In the subsequent divorce action Supreme Court, by order dated August 21, 2002, determined that, since the child would be entering kindergarten in September 2002, joint custody should be continued, with the mother having primary residential custody. The judgment of divorce further provided “broad and liberal” visitation to the father as agreed to by the parties and referred the matter to Family Court for the resolution of any visitation disputes. The father immediately instituted this proceeding in Family Court, seeking specifically delineated rights of visitation. Following a plenary hearing, Family Court granted the father specific rights of visitation from which order the mother now appeals, contending that the visitation schedule grants the father “de facto custody” in contravention of the Supreme Court judgment, and that the visitation schedule is *749not in the best interests of the child. We disagree with these contentions and affirm.

As with custody determinations, the guiding principle in fixing a visitation schedule is the best interests of the child *(see Matter of La Scola v Litz,*258 AD2d 792, 792-793 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 809 [1999]). Unless visitation is inimical to the child’s welfare *(see Matter of Iadicicco v Iadicicco,*270 AD2d 721, 722 [2000]), Family Court is required to structure a schedule which results in frequent and regular access by the noncustodial parent *(see Matter of Jordan v Jordan,*288 AD2d 709, 710 [2001]). Here, the record reveals that Family Court properly exercised its discretion, appropriately considering both the best interests of the child and the need for meaningful visitation. The court heard testimony that both parents were fit and loving and that the previous joint custodial arrangement worked satisfactorily, with no apparent adverse impact on the child. In addition, the mother, during her direct testimony, proposed a visitation schedule nearly identical to that ultimately adopted by the court. She repeated and clarified the proposal when cross-examined by the father’s counsel and the child’s Law Guardian and again when queried by the court. The court also determined that the mother’s testimony was “thoroughly incredible” and, therefore, discredited a significant portion of it. We find no basis to disturb this credibility determination *(see Matter of Watts v Watts,*290 AD2d 822 [2002], *lv denied*97 NY2d 614 [2002]). In short, this record fully supports Family Court’s conclusions and the visitation schedule that it established.

Spain, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
RENE ANTONIO AGUILAR,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50359

D.C. No. 3:17

- cr

- 01172

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, GR ABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Rene Antonio Aguilar appeals from the district court ’s judgment and

challenges the 48

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50359

Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

address his non

- frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain

error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 , 1108 & n.3

(9th Ci r. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court

considered Aguilar ’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they

warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Perez

- Perez , 512 F.3d 514, 516

(9th Cir. 2008).

Agu ilar next contends that the district court erred by failing to explain

adequately his above

- Guidelines sentence. We conclude that the district court ’ s

explanation was sufficient to allow for meaningful review. See Rita v. United

States
, 551 U.S. 338, 356

- 57 (2007); United States v

. Leonard
, 483 F

. 3d 635
, 637

( 9th Cir

. 2007 ).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-17235

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

Carla B. Higginbotham, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leah Rae Wigren, Esquire, Attorney, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

David Arnold, Pro Se

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Arnold appeals from the district court’s order affirming the judgment of conviction entered by a magistrate judge following his nolo contendere plea to four misdemeanor petty offenses for camping on public land in California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arnold’s nolo contendere plea waived all nonjurisdictional defects that preceded his plea, although he can challenge the volun*771tary and intelligent nature of the plea. *See Tollett v. Henderson,*411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); *Ortberg v. Moody,*961 F.2d 135, 137-38 (9th Cir. 1992). Arnold maintains that his plea was coerced because his counsel told him he would go to jail if he did not enter a plea and he feared losing his mobile home and medical care. The record shows, however, that Arnold understood the charges, the rights he was waiving, and the penalties he faced, and that he pleaded nolo contendere voluntarily and intelligently in order to resolve the citations immediately. Moreover, although the district court erred in failing to state the minimum and maximum penalties, Arnold has not shown that, but for this omission, he would not have pleaded nolo contendere. *See United States v. Dominguez Benitez,*542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). Even if Arnold’s remaining claims are not waived, they fail for lack of support in the record.1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We deny Arnold’s request to take judicial notice of the facts he cites in support of his claim that the magistrate judge plainly erred in accepting a plea to a citation that was outside of the issuing Bureau of Land Management ranger’s jurisdiction. The exact location where the ranger issued the citation—a fact presented for the first time on appeal—is subject to reasonable dispute, and therefore is not judicially noticeable. *See*Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); *Reina-Rodriguez v. United States,*655 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011).
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 333-43138, 33-61907, 33-10257, 333-44959, 333-61833, 333-69268,
333-90919 and 333-88250) pertaining to the 1981 Employee Incentive Stock Option
Plan, 1987 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1995
Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1995 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, as amended, CEO Option Program, VP Sales Option Program and VP
Finance & Administration Option Program of California Micro Devices Corporation
of our report dated April 29, 2002, with respect to the financial statements and
schedule of California Micro Devices Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2002.

                              /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California

June 21, 2002
#### Gary Clyde KEEVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herb JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6076

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Gary Clyde Keever, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Clyde Keever seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keever has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability* deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
J.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5037

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Joseph Orby SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the NAVY, Appellee.

No. 74-1386.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 14, 1974.

Decided Nov. 20, 1974.

Thomas M. Bradshaw, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Frederick Griffin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, CLARK, Associate Justice, Retired,* and WEBSTER, Circuit Judge.

*

 Associate Justice Tom C. Clark, United States Supreme Court, Retired, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a careful consideration of the record and of the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Court has concluded that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed for the reasons stated in Judge Oliver’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion.

Although it is clear that Smith’s 1942 court martial conviction was for non-service connected offenses, under the reasoning of O’Callaghan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S.Ct. 1683, 23 L.Ed.2d 291 (1969), retroactive relief upon this basis is not available. Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665, 93 S.Ct. 2926, 37 L.Ed.2d 873 (1973). We are also of the opinion that the District Court correctly concluded that Smith must exhaust his administrative remedies under 10 U.S.C. § 869 before applying to the courts for relief on his claim of the lack of a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.

The judgment of the District Court dismissing the petition is hereby affirmed.
Christopher Columbus BYRD v. STATE

CR-15-1309

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

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

William P. Moffitt, as President and
Chief Executive Officer and Lorin J. Randall as Senior Vice President of Finance,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of i-STAT Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    
          the Companys Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
          Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Company.

DATE:
November 14, 2003

/s/ William P. Moffitt    _________________



William P. Moffitt              
                                                     President and Chief            Executive Officer

/s/ Lorin J. Randall    _________________



Lorin J. Randall                  
                                                     Senior Vice President         of Finance,
                                                     Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

(A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to
i-STAT Corporation and will be retained by i-STAT Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
From: Rogers, Bob

To: Fritchie, Denis; Boyd, Christopher

Subject: FW: SIP Amendment Comments

Date: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:41:29 PM

Attachments: MPO Comment - SIP Amedment 02.24.14.pdf

Bob Rogers, Manager

Pollution Control

Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Ave.

Memphis TN 38105

(901)222-9599

From: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov [mailto:Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:45 PM

To: Rogers, Bob

Cc: Srivastava, Pragati; Ray, Andrew - City of Memphis

Subject: SIP Amendment Comments

Good Afternoon Bob,

Hope you had a nice weekend.  The MPO has reviewed the SIP Amendment and our comments are

attached.

Thank you,

Kate Horton, RLA, ASLA

Memphis MPO Transportation Planner

125 North Main Street

Suite 450

Memphis, TN 38103

901.576.7218
# Službeni list C 182A/14.

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 182A |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | Svezak 57.14. lipnja 2014. |

ISSN 1977-1088

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 182A

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

Svezak 57.14. lipnja 2014.

---

| Obavijest br. | Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V.   Objave |
| | ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI |
| | Europski ured za odabir osoblja (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Obavijest o poništenju | 1 |

Obavijest br.

Sadržaj

Stranica

V.   Objave

ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI

Europski ured za odabir osoblja (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Obavijest o poništenju

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Pregled Natječaja SL C A | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Pregled Natječaja SL C A

2

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

V. Objave

ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI

Europski ured za odabir osoblja (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CA 182/1

---

OBAVIJEST O PONIŠTENJU

2014/C 182 A/01

Otvoreni natječaji:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 – korektori (AST 3) za grčki jezik (EL)

  i |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 – korektori (AST 3) za grčki jezik (EL)

i

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 – korektori (AST 3) za portugalski jezik (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 – korektori (AST 3) za portugalski jezik (PT),

o kojima su obavijesti objavljene u Službenom listu Europske unije
   (1) poništavaju se.

---

(1)  SL C 131 A, 8.5.2013., str. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CA 182/2

---

PREGLED NATJEČAJA SL C A

2014/C 182 A/02

Dolje je naveden popis SL C A objavljenih u tekućoj godini.

Ako nije drugačije navedeno, SL je objavljen na svim jezičnim inačicama.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
Exhibit 32.2




Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350









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 Annual Report of Arrayit Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rene A. Schena, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/  Rene A. Schena


Rene A. Schena


Chief Financial Officer




April 14, 2014
Jonathan Lee DOUGLAS v. STATE

CR-16-0098

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Christopher CALLOWAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2574

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0001739

22-NOV-2013

09:54 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1428 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1428

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the source rules 
   to provide for economic recovery in the possessions of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2021

 Ms. Plaskett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the source rules 
   to provide for economic recovery in the possessions of the United 
                                States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Territorial Tax Parity Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO SOURCE RULES INVOLVING POSSESSIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 937(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by inserting ``, but only to the extent such income is 
attributable to an office or fixed place of business within the United 
States (determined under the rules of section 864(c)(5))'' before the 
period at the end.
    (b) Source Rules for Personal Property Sales.--Section 865(j)(3) of 
such Code is amended by inserting ``, 932,'' after ``931''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
Derek A. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4702

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.