alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE EX REL. Melvin BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0363

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMNAY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Eric Dwain JACOBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Eric Dwain Jacobs, Daytona Beach, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
E.J.L., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1373

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Ruben QUECARA-CASTILLO, AKA Ruben Quecara, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72746

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Omar Nakib, Attorney, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*645Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ruben Quecara-Castillo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v.*Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Quecara-Castillo’s motion to reopen based on lack of notice, where his hearing notice was mailed to the last address he provided. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A), (b)(5)(C)(ii).

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Quecara-Castillo’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than twelve years after his in absentia removal order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Because Quecara-Cas-tillo fails to challenge the dispositive untimeliness determination, we do not reach the merits of his exceptional circumstances claim.

Quecara-Castillo’s contention that the BIA erred in summarily affirming the IJ’s decision is without merit. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i); *Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1074 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This .disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
D.R. and D.R. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160550

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Mike GRANT et al. v. BRELAND HOMES, LLC, et al.

1151279

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Singleton, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 106]

*409Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Frederic Berman, J.) rendered January 4, 1991, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction made on the ground that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel and conflict-free representation *(see People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796 [1985]). Although defendant’s trial counsel had previously represented a codefendant at his plea of guilty to charges arising from the same criminal incident, defendant failed to demonstrate a significant possibility that a conflict of interest existed that operated to his detriment and bore a substantial relation to the conduct of the defense *(see People v Recupero,*73 NY2d 877, 879 [1988]; *see also Cuyler v Sullivan,*446 US 335, 348-350 [1980]). The record, including defendant’s own submissions on the motion, establishes that trial counsel made a sound strategic decision to refrain from calling the codefendant as a witness, and that this decision had nothing to do with any potential conflict of interest. The codefendant’s testimony would have been unnecessary, unhelpful, extensively impeached and potentially very damaging to defendant’s misidentification defense. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.
Prince Eric ARRINGTON v. STATE

CR-16-0538

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct.
#### Michael SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.*

16-1405

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 7, 2017

*49FOR APPELLANT: J. AARON LAWSON (with Ryan D. Andrews and Roger Perlstadt on the brief), Edelson PC, Chicago, IL.

FOR APPELLEE: RAGAN NARESH (with Jeffrey S. Powell and Kathleen A. Brogan on the brief), Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN,** District Judge,

*

 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform to the above.

**

 Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Michael Simmons appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of defendant Charter Communications, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Underhill, J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history; and the issues presented for review.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Underhill’s thorough opinion.

Accordingly we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Charles T. MCGUIRE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3362

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
J.L.F. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160318

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.
#### Dennis L. HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS and Neil McDowell, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-16437

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Dennis L. Hamilton, Pro Se

Andrew R. Woodrow, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis L. Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2009 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss. *1*

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Hamilton’s next parole hearing violates the Ex Post Facto *631Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Nettles v. Grounds,*830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), *cert. denied,*580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); *Phelps v. Alameda,*366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Hamilton from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

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

CR-16-0353

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Pickens Cir. Ct.
STATE EX REL. Johnny Lee O'NEAL v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0361

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral *563review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
EXHIBIT 21





Subsidiaries of NetIQ Corporation





Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of IncorporationDatabase Tools Development (Pty.) Ltd.

South AfricaMarisoula Investments b.v.

NetherlandsMission Critical Software, North America

DelawareMission Critical Software (UK) Limited

United KingdomMission Critical Software GmbH

GermanyMission Critical Software, Inc.

Texas, USANetIQ Asia Limited

Hong KongNetIQ Asia Pty. Ltd.

SingaporeNetIQ Canada Corporation

CanadaNetIQ Denmark ApS

DenmarkNetIQ Deutschland GmbH

GermanyNetIQ do Brasil Ltda.

BrazilNetIQ Europe Limited

IrelandNetIQ France Sarl

FranceNetIQ International Ltd.

Cayman IslandsNetIQ Ireland Limited

IrelandNetIQ Italia S.r.l.

ItalyNetIQ K.K.

JapanNetIQ Korea Limited

KoreaNetIQ Limited

United KingdomNetIQ Pty. Ltd.

AustraliaNetIQ Software Espana S.L.

SpainNetIQ Sweden AB

SwedenSoftware Realization, Inc.*

TexasWebTrends FSC, Inc.

BarbadosWebTrends UK Limited

United Kingdom


---

|* | Dissolved September 5, 2002
|- | ---------------------------
Theophile SABERRE, Dawn Saberre, and John Saberre v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION and CitiMortgage, Inc.

2160186

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Ben Shelly 

President of the Navajo Nation 

P. 0. Box 7440 

Window Rock, Arizona 86515 

Dear President Shelly: 

AUG -8 2014 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Thank you for your letter, dated July 15, 2014, requesting government-to-government consultation on 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants and 

our anticipated supplemental proposal to address existing power plants in Indian country. In your letter, 

you designated Stephen Etsitty, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection 

Agency, as your primary contact on this matter. 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9, has been in contact with Mr. Etsitty about 

scheduling consultation with you. Mr. Blumenfeld and Mr. Etsitty discussed a potential meeting in 

September to coincide with the Fall Meeting of the Environmental Council of the States in Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, scheduled for September 15 - 17, 2014. 

In addition to Mr. Blumenfeld, I will be also be attending the ECOS Fall Meeting in Santa Fe. I am 

writing to request a meeting with you in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on September 15 from lpm to 2:30pm. 

In your letter, you expressed interest in discussing the development of carbon reduction goals for areas 

of Indian country, the timeframe for the development and submittal ofplans for the affected power 

plants on the Navajo Nation, and the potential for multi-jurisdictional planning between states and the 

Navajo Nation. I look forward to discussing these issues with you. 

My staff will contact Mr. Etsitty to confirm this meeting with you, or to work towards an alternative date 

if that is your preference. I look forward to meeting with you soon. 

Sincerely, 

Janet G. McCabe 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

cc: Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director, Navajo Nation EPA 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recy cled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
(January 26, 2004)

#### Gerald Abrams, et al., Respondents, v Victor Ho, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[770 NYS2d 638]

*545In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Victor Ho appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mega, J.), entered October 11, 2002, as, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff Gerald Abrams sustained damages in the principal sums of $570,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,950,000 for future pain and suffering, and that the plaintiff Michelle Abrams sustained damages in the sum of $275,000 for loss of services, and upon the granting of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to the extent of reducing the awards for past pain and suffering from $570,000 to $350,000, for future pain and suffering from $1,950,000 to $750,000, and for loss of services from $275,000 to $25,000, and the denying of those branches of his motion which were to set aside the verdict as legally insufficient and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the motion which were to set aside the verdict as legally insufficient and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Victor Ho are granted.

It is well settled that the requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice case are a departure from accepted practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of the injury *(see Biggs v Mary Immaculate Hosp.,*303 AD2d 702 [2003]; *Roseingrave v Massapequa Gen. Hosp.,*298 AD2d 377 [2002]; *Barracca v St. Francis Hosp.,*237 AD2d 396 [1997]). It is the plaintiffs “burden to show that the defendants’ conduct was a substantial causative factor in the sequence of events that led to [the plaintiffs] injury” *(Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*50 NY2d 507, 520 [1980]; *see Marren v State of New York,*142 AD2d 717 [1988]). The test is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording him the benefit of every favorable inference, there was any rational basis on which the jury could have found for the plaintiff *(see Biggs v Mary Immaculate Hosp., supra*at 703).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and affording them the benefit of every favorable inference, we find that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case against the defendant Dr. Victor Ho. Assuming that the jury accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence that Dr. Ho’s treatment of the plaintiff Gerald Abram departed from good and accepted standards of medical practice, there was no rational basis on which the jury could have found for the plaintiffs on the issue of *546proximate cause *(see Biggs v Mary Immaculate Hosp., supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of Dr. Ho’s motion which were to set aside the verdict as legally insufficient and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael F. MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6701

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*184Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Matthews appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Matthews,*No. 3:07-cr-00226-REP-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. May 18, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 7917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty First RTCA SC-223 Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) and 
AeroMACS Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Twenty First RTCA SC-223 Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) and 
AeroMACS Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Twenty First RTCA SC-223 Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) and 
AeroMACS Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 28-March 01, 2017 09:00 a.m.-
05:00 p.m. and March 02, 2017 09:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Claudia Chaudhari at 
cchaudhari@rtca.org or 202-330-0662, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 
833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty First RTCA SC-223 Aeronautical 
Mobile Airport Communication System Plenary. The agenda will include 
the following:

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome, Introductions, Administrative Remarks
2. Review of previous meeting notes and action items
3. Review of Current State of Industry Standards
    a. ICAO WG-I
    b. AEEC IPS Sub Committee
4. Current State of Industry Activities
    a. SESAR Programs
    b. ESA IRIS Precursor
    c. Any Other Activities
5. IPS Technical Discussions
    a. Review of IPS high level profile
    b. Review of IPS RFC detail Profiles
    c. Prioritization of additional IETF RFCs for Profiling
6. Any Other Topics of Interest
7. Plans for Next Meetings
8. Review of Action Items and Meeting Summary
9. Adjourn

Wednesday March 1, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

Continue in Plenary

Thursday March 2, 2017--9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Continue in Plenary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-01406 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Parts 430, 431, 433, 435, 436, and 440

Medicare and Medicaid Program; Regulatory Provisions To Promote 
Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden Reduction

CFR Correction

0
In Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 430 to 481, 
revised as of October 1, 2013, in parts 430, 431, 433, 435, 436, and 
440, make the following changes:

Sec. Sec.  430.25, 431.120, 431.151, 431.153, 433.56, 435.217, 436.217, 
440.1, 440.150  [Corrected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           In section                   Remove                Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
430.25(c)(2)....................  ICF/IIDIID........  ICF/IID.
431.120(a)(3)...................  ICF/IIDIID........  ICF/IID.
431.151(a)(2) and (a)(3)........  ICF/IIDIID........  ICF/IID.
431.153(e)(1) introductory text.  ICF/IIDIID........  ICF/IID.
431.153(e)(1) introductory text,  ICF/IIDICF/IID....  ICF/IID.
 and (e)(1)(ii).
433.56(a)(4)....................  ICF/IIDICF/IIDs...  ICF/IIDs.
435.217(b)(1)...................  ICF/IIDICF/IID....  ICF/IID.
436.217(b)(1)...................  ICF/IIDICF/IID....  ICF/IID.
440.1, in the entry for           ICF/IIDICF/IID....  ICF/IID.
 ``1915(c)''.
440.150 heading (both places      ICF/IIDICF/IID....  ICF/IID.
 where it appears), and (a)
 introductory text, and (a)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-23531 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
Tyler J. GORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.