alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Flint, 2017-Ohio-7806.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 CLINTON COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-11-020 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 9/25/2017 

 : 

CHARLES E. FLINT, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CRI16-500-158 

Richard W. Moyer, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, 103 East Main Street, Wilmington, 

Ohio 45177, for plaintiff-appellee 

Richard L. Federle, Jr., 820 Willow Bend Drive, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for defendantappellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the briefs of counsel. 

{¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Charles Flint, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 
Clinton CA2016-11-020 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

HENDRICKSON, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1555 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1555

 To require the Federal Communications Commission to issue final rules 
    to promote and incentivize the widespread adoption of broadband 
                consumer labels, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2021

  Ms. Craig introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Federal Communications Commission to issue final rules 
    to promote and incentivize the widespread adoption of broadband 
                consumer labels, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Broadband Consumer Transparency Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF CONSUMER BROADBAND LABELS.

    (a) Final Rule.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations to 
promote and incentivize the widespread adoption of broadband consumer 
labels, as described in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on 
April 4, 2016 (DA 16-357), to disclose to consumers information 
regarding broadband internet access service plans.
    (b) Hearings.--In issuing the final rule under subsection (a), the 
Commission shall conduct a series of public hearings to assess, at the 
time of the proceeding--
            (1) how consumers evaluate broadband internet access 
        service plans; and
            (2) whether disclosures to consumers information regarding 
        broadband internet access service plans, including those 
        required under section 8.1 of title 47, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, are available, effective, and sufficient.
    (c) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) Broadband internet access service.--The term 
        ``broadband internet access service'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 8.1 of title 47, Code of Federal 
        Regulations.
            (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
        Communications Commission.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6317

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 22, 2017

James Wyda,‘ Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Preston seeks to appeal the district court’s margin order denying relief on his emergency supplemental 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Preston has 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
### CMF

2 - furancarboxyaldehyde, 5 - (chloromethyl) - CAS# 75 - 09 - 2
# Jornal Oficial C 134A/3 de

| | ISSN 1977-1010 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 134A |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 57.° ano3 de maio de 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1010

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 134A

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

57.° ano3 de maio de 2014

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Retificações |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Retificação do anúncio de concurso geral — EPSO/AD/278/14 — Administradores (AD 7) nos seguintes domínios: 1. Informática forense 2. Análise operacional — (Jornal Oficial da União EuropeiaC 88 A de 27 de março de 2014) | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

Retificações

2014/C 134A/01

Retificação do anúncio de concurso geral — EPSO/AD/278/14 — Administradores (AD 7) nos seguintes domínios: 1. Informática forense 2. Análise operacional — (Jornal Oficial da União EuropeiaC 88 A de 27 de março de 2014)

(Jornal Oficial da União EuropeiaC 88 A de 27 de março de 2014)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Recapitulação dos JO C A Concursos | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Recapitulação dos JO C A Concursos

2

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

Retificações

| 3.5.2014 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 134/1

---

Retificação do anúncio de concurso geral

EPSO/AD/278/14 — ADMINISTRADORES (AD 7)

nos seguintes domínios:

| 1. | INFORMÁTICA FORENSE |
| --- | --- |

1.

INFORMÁTICA FORENSE

| 2. | ANÁLISE OPERACIONAL |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANÁLISE OPERACIONAL

(«Jornal Oficial da União Europeia»
  C 88 A de 27 de março de 2014
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

Na página 7, título VIII, ponto 1:

onde se lê:

«Prazo (validação incluída): 29 de abril de 2014 às 12 horas (meio-dia), hora de Bruxelas»,

deve ler-se:

«Prazo (validação incluída): 6 de maio de 2014 às 12 horas (meio-dia), hora de Bruxelas».

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 134/2

---

RECAPITULAÇÃO DOS JO C A CONCURSOS

2014/C 134 A/02

Lista dos JO C A publicados no ano em curso.

Salvo indicação em contrário, os JO são publicados em todas as versões linguísticas.

| 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 | |

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

---
### greatlakes.xls

Author: Abt Associates Inc. Created: 03/24/11

Worksheet Description

Sheet1 reports baseline impingement and entrainment

mortality losses at baseline and under regulatory options 1 through 3. Purpose: This is an output file for the great lakes region including baseline impingement and entrainment mortality losses at baseline and under regulatory options 1 through 3.

File Info 1 of 2Species Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

1 All forage species 38.61662 33.45626 38.19983 38.28653 7.841515 0 6.262487 6.357069 46.45813 33.45626 44.46232 44.64359 2 All harvested species 5.510646 4.774255 5.451169 5.463541 1.528266 0 1.220523 1.238956 7.038912 4.774255 6.671692 6.702497 3 Black bullhead 0.000912 0.00079 0.000902 0.000904 0 0 0 0 0.000912 0.00079 0.000902 0.000904 4 Black crappie 4.12E-05 3.57E-05 4.07E-05 4.08E-05 0 0 0 0 4.12E-05 3.57E-05 4.07E-05 4.08E-05 5 Bluegill 0.000143 0.000124 0.000141 0.000141 0 0 0 0 0.000143 0.000124 0.000141 0.000141 6 Brown bullhead 2.25E-05 1.95E-05 2.22E-05 2.23E-05 0 0 0 0 2.25E-05 1.95E-05 2.22E-05 2.23E-05 7 Bullheads 0.000663 0.000574 0.000656 0.000657 0 0 0 0 0.000663 0.000574 0.000656 0.000657 8 Channel catfish 0.00634 0.005493 0.006271 0.006286 0.000483 0 0.000386 0.000392 0.006823 0.005493 0.006657 0.006677 9 Crappie 0.000506 0.000438 0.000501 0.000502 0.0182 0 0.014535 0.014755 0.018706 0.000438 0.015036 0.015257 10 Freshwater drum 0.018385 0.015928 0.018186 0.018228 0.048408 0 0.03866 0.039244 0.066793 0.015928 0.056846 0.057472 11 Muskellunge3.02E-06 2.62E-06 2.99E-06 3E-06 0 0 0 0 3.02E-06 2.62E-06 2.99E-06 3E-06 12 Fish (other)0.058244 0.050461 0.057615 0.057746 0.001062 0 0.000848 0.000861 0.059306 0.050461 0.058463 0.058607 14 Rainbow smelt 0.36808 0.318893 0.364107 0.364934 0.06747 0 0.053884 0.054698 0.435551 0.318893 0.417992 0.419632 15 Salmon 0.005103 0.004421 0.005048 0.00506 0.00145 0 0.001158 0.001176 0.006554 0.004421 0.006207 0.006235 16 Sculpins 0.001317 0.001141 0.001303 0.001306 0.024346 0 0.019443 0.019737 0.025663 0.001141 0.020746 0.021043 17 Smallmouth bass 0.000464 0.000402 0.000459 0.00046 6.24E-06 0 4.98E-06 5.06E-06 0.00047 0.000402 0.000464 0.000465 18 Smelts 4.494551 3.893942 4.446041 4.456132 0.02048 0 0.016356 0.016603 4.515031 3.893942 4.462397 4.472735 19 Sunfish 0.019033 0.016489 0.018827 0.01887 1.184338 0 0.945851 0.960136 1.203371 0.016489 0.964678 0.979006 20 Walleye 0.000881 0.000763 0.000871 0.000873 0 0 0 0 0.000881 0.000763 0.000871 0.000873 21 White bass 0.04849 0.042011 0.047967 0.048076 0.094923 0 0.075809 0.076954 0.143414 0.042011 0.123776 0.12503 22 Whitefish 0.227229 0.196864 0.224776 0.225286 3.56E-05 0 2.84E-05 2.88E-05 0.227264 0.196864 0.224805 0.225315 23 Yellow perch 0.260239 0.225463 0.25743 0.258014 0.067063 0 0.053559 0.054368 0.327302 0.225463 0.310988 0.312382 24 Total (all species) 44.12726 38.23052 43.651 43.75007 9.369782 0 7.483009 7.596026 53.49705 38.23052 51.13401 51.34609

Sheet1 2 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10711

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00486-SCB-EAJ-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

WALDIR FORBES-SUAREZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 27, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Waldir Forbes-Suarez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute 

cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He 

Case: 13-10711 Date Filed: 01/27/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

contends that the district court plainly erred by failing to dismiss his indictment 

because the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”) is unconstitutional 

as applied to his conduct. He points to United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 

F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012); then, he argues that the phrase “through international 

waters” set forth in his plea agreement does not mean (and thus does not admit) 

that his boats actually left territorial waters.

Forbes-Suarez waived the right to raise his present challenge to his 

conviction by entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Ternus, 

598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Yunis, 723 F.2d 795, 796 

(11th Cir. 1984). In addition, no decision of this Court or the Supreme Court 

supports Forbes-Suarez’s contention that his admitting the vessels in his 

conspiracy used “international waters” fails to include inherently a concession that 

the vessels went outside of “territorial waters.” In a case like this one, 

“international waters” has a customary meaning and is not ambiguous. For 

MDLEA proceedings, territorial waters ≠ international waters, at least in the 

absence of binding precedent saying something else. Therefore, the district court 

did not commit plain error by failing to dismiss his indictment sua sponte.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10711 Date Filed: 01/27/2014 Page: 2 of 2
Edwin Cantero HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4893

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
July 5, 2006 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          August 14, 2006               /s/  Kevin G. Gregory
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Kevin G. Gregory
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-88721, 333-37076, 333-52172, 333-59034, 333-81682, and 333-108478 of NetIQCorporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated July 21, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs regarding the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,“Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” and the revisions to certain expense classifications) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetIQ Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2003. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Jose, California 

September 8, 2003
Exhibit
23.2
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 The Board
of Directors
 Endavo
Media and Communications, Inc.:
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Endavo Media and Communications, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119586) filed on
October 7, 2004 of our report dated February 13, 2004, on the consolidated
balance sheets of Endavo Media and Communications, Inc. as of December 31, 2003
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit and
cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in Endavo Media and
Communications, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.
 
 /s/
Tanner+Co.
 
 
 Salt Lake
City, Utah
 April 14,
2005
N.J.B., JR., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FAMILY CREATIONS, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1031

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|(1) | The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                                   
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: May 7, 2010 |  |                                   
|                  |  | /s/ Stryker Warren, jr,           
|                  |  | Stryker Warren, jr.               
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer           
|                  | 
|                  |  | /s/ Rebecca J. Weber              
|                  |  | Rebecca J. Weber                  
|                  |  | Controller and Director of Finance
Agreement dated January 24, 2008



 Exhibit 4.29 
 AGREEMENT (HN.1865) 
 THIS AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”) is entered into this 24th day of January 2008. 
 BETWEEN 
 DRILLSHIP KITHIRA OWNERS INC., a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of Marshall
Islands having its registered office at Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, Marshall Islands MH 96960 (hereinafter referred to as “Buyer”); and 
 SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO., LTD, a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the Republic
of Korea and having its registered office at 34th Floor, Samsung Life Insurance Seocho Tower 1321-15, Seocho-Dong, Seocho-Gu, Seoul, Korea 137-857
(hereinafter referred to as “Builder”) 
 Collectively referred to as “Parties”, and individually as “Party” 
 WHEREAS: 
 (a)
The Parties have entered into a contract for construction and sale of drillship (Hull no. 1865) (the “Drillship”) dated 24th January 2008
(the “Contract”); 
 (b) The Builder will enter into a supply contracts with National Oilwell Varco (NOV) for the supply of a drilling package (the
“Supply Contract”) for HN.1865 of which 55% of USD 265,147,792 for the drilling package to be delivered under the supply contract is subject to an exchange rate between United States Dollars (USD) and Norwegian Kroner (NOK) of 5.4;

 (c) Although not a party to the Supply Contract the Buyer has expressed its willingness to take the risk for increase or decrease in the contract price
due to a certain change in the exchange rate between USD and NOK; 
 NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby further agreed as follows; 
 1. Any increase or decrease of the contract price under the Supply Contract due to the exchange rate between USD and NOK being above or below USD 5.4 on the date of
signing the Contract (the “Signing Date”) shall be for the Buyer account and risk and the contract price under the Contract shall be adjusted accordingly. 
 2. The actual exchange rate to be applied between USD and NOK on the Signing Date shall be the exchange rate quoted by Norges Bank for this date. For the avoidance of doubt, any changes in the exchange rate after the
Signing Date shall not be for the Buyer account and risk. 
 3. Any increase or decrease of the contract price under the Contract due to the above shall be
settled by the Parties together with the second instalment to be paid under the Contract. 
  

 1 








 4. In case of discrepancy between this Agreement and the Contract, this Agreement shall take precedence. 
 5. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England. Any claim, dispute or difference shall be settled in accordance with the
provisions in Article XII of the Contract. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and
year first above written. 
  

							
	BUYER:	 	BUILDER:
		
	 For and on behalf of the BUYER:
 DRILLSHIP
KITHIRA OWNERS INC.
	 	 For and on behalf of the BUILDER:
 SAMSUNG
HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO., LTD

		
	 


	 	 



	By:	 	Mr. George Economou	 	By:	 	Mr. Harris Lee
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory	 	Title:	 	Vice President

  

 2
#### Tommy E. CRAWFORD, Claimant-Appellant v. Robert A. MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2016-1681

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 8, 2016

Maxwell Douglas Kinman, Alexander, Webb, and Kinman, Mason, OH, argued for claimant-appellant.

James R. Sweet, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr„ Scott D. Austin; Y. Ken Lee, Jonathan Krisch, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

(Dyk, Bryson, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Herman U. GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2705

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

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

Case No. 2D17-599

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Floyd D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4079

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.