alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1545

A. CORWIN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH R. FRAZER; D. KENT GILLIAM; WAYNE K.

TAYLOR; DEBRA C. TAYLOR; NATHANIEL M. COLLIER,

III; WILLIAM B. CAVE; PLATO GEORGE ELIADES,

II; THOMAS GORDON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK L. EARLEY;

RANDOLPH A. BEALES; JUDITH W. JAGDMANN;

GREGORY E. LUCYK, SR.; PETER R. MESSITT;

VIRGINIA STATE BAR; MARY MARTILINO; EDWARD L.

DAVIS; R. CRAIG HOPSON; WILLIAM S. FRANCIS;

MELISSA HOY; D.T.T. INCORPORATED; WILLIAM R.

SHELTON, Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-680-3)

Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 19, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

A. Corwin Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Macon Collier, III,

Colonial Heights, Virginia; Hugh McCoy Fain, III, Mary Elizabeth

Davis, SPOTTS, FAIN, CHAPPELL & ANDERSON, Richmond, Virginia;

Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond,

Virginia; Plato George Eliades, II, HILL, RAINEY & ELIADES,

Hopewell, Virginia; Thomas Gordon, GORDON, DODSON & GORDON,

Chesterfield, Virginia; Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William S.

Francis, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

A. Corwin Taylor appeals the district court’s orders adopting

the two reports and recommendation of the magistrate judge and

finally dismissing this civil action. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Taylor v. Frazer, No. CA-01-680-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2002, May 8,

2002). We dispense with oral argument and deny Taylor’s pending

motion for the appointment of counsel because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: August 2, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN  
|Thomas J. Baldwin      
|Chief Executive Officer
Rashanda Nate SPATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5447

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
July 6 , 2011 Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office des transports du Canada

Office of International Aviation U.S . Department of Transportation X40, suite 6402 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D .C. 20590 Dear Mr. Gretch Reference : OST 2006-24269 Canadian Transportation Agency

File: M48201U5-19

This letter confirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by US air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America, signed March 12, 2007 and, for those charters not specified in the Annex to that Agreement, on the basis of comity and reciprocity .

# ~ll**ince ~~** 

# MacDonald Manager International Agreements

cc Robert Ready , ANA Marc Rioux , ACEA. . Ottawa ( O ntari o) K 1 A O N9 www. otc . gc.ca Ottawa O ntari o K 1 A ON 9 www .cta . gc .ca 

# Canada
J.W., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2733

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

J.W., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6261 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To direct the Comptroller General to conduct a review on 

the impact of crime on public building usage, and for 

other purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6261 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Impact of Crime on 

3 Public Building Usage Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON IMPACT OF CRIME ON PUBLIC BUILD5 ING USAGE. 

6 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

8 shall conduct a review and submit to Congress a report 

9 outlining— 

10 (1) the effects of increased crime rates and 

11 safety concerns, including use of fentanyl and other 

12 drugs and homelessness, in urban areas on building 

13 usage for in-person work at Federal buildings; 

14 (2) how usage of different commuting modes of 

15 transportation to Federal buildings are affected by 

16 increased crime rates; 

17 (3) the effects of low office utilization rates on 

18 safety around Federal buildings; 

19 (4) any agency exceptions given to the policy 

20 set forth in the memorandum of the Office of Man21 agement and Budget titled ‘‘Measuring, Monitoring, 

22 and Improving Organizational Health and Organiza23 tional Performance in the Context of Evolving Agen24 cy Work Environments’’ and issued on April 13, 

25 2023, due to unsafe commuting conditions; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 6261 RFS

1 (5) any costs associated with safety issues im2 pacting Federal building. 

3 SEC. 3. REPORT ON COSTS OF CRIME AROUND PUBLIC 

4 BUILDINGS. 

5 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the inspector general of the General Services 

7 Administration shall submit to Congress a report on the 

8 impacts on and costs associated with building operations 

9 related to crime and public safety in and around Federal 

10 buildings. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Shelby BURCH and Margaret Milstead-Burch, Appellants, v. Cheryl M. DAVIS and Travis G. Davis, Appellees.

No. 1D18-1191

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2018

John W. Wesley of Wesley, McGrail & Wesley, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellants.

Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, for Appellees.

Per curiam.

DISMISSED . The Court declines to relinquish jurisdiction as requested by the Appellant in the response to the Court's March 27, 2018, order. *See**Demont v. Demont* , 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing appeal rather than allowing lower court to enter a final order where an indeterminate amount of judicial labor remained to be done before a final order could be entered).

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
STATE EX REL. Wilfred SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0401

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

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 two applications 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 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.
#### Stacy BUNN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23533.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1966.

*810Melton Hill Tankersley, Montgomery, Ala. (Court-appointed), for appellant.

R. Macey Taylor, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is here on direct appeal from a conviction, which is subject to a motion to dismiss unless the time for filing has been extended by reason of the circumstances in the district court, and it is also here as an appeal from a Section 2255 motion, filed in the same district court.

We hold that the filing of notice of appeal was extended by reason of Bunn’s having no counsel available at the time the notice of appeal was required to be filed in the district court. See Boruff v. United States, 5 Cir., 310 F.2d 918, Lyles v. United States, 5 Cir., 346 F.2d 789, and Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 356 F.2d 63.

We have carefully considered the briefs filed by appointed counsel and by appellant himself and find that there is no merit in the contention that Bunn himself was not seen selling the pills, the subject matter of the prosecution. There is ample evidence of his involvement in the actions of the other defendants. Neither do we find any error in the rulings of the trial court.

As to matters raised in this court for the first time, they are without any support in the record and can, therefore, not be noticed on this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
Certified Public Accountant
                                         330 E. Warm Springs
                                         Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                702.528.1984





April 12, 2000


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the
inclusion of my report of April 12, 2000, on the Financial
Statements of The Regency Group Limited, Inc. from the
inception date of February 1, 1999 through December 31,
1999, in any filings which are necessary now or in the near
future to be filed with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Signed,



/s/G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
Nevada License #2701
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHANCELLOR FRAGOSO

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

State. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 22

- 00 1 8 2

- C R

Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20160D01962 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right

of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with the trial

court clerk within t hirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s right of

appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall prepare a

supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no later than

February 4 , 202 3

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st d ay of December , 20 2 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11057

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TAMMY JO MAYO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-56-A-3

- - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tammy Jo Mayo appeals from her judgment of conviction and

sentence. She argues that the district court erred by

attributing to her 19 pounds of methamphetamine and that a

comment by the district court at the sentencing hearing

constituted a threat that chilled her defense. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Affidavits and

testimony by Mayo’s coconspirators support the district court’s

decision to attribute to her 19 pounds of methamphetamine. See

United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993). 
No. 97-11057

-2-

Further, the district court’s comment at the sentencing hearing

was a correct statement of the law and did not constitute a

threat. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)). Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### * Commonwealth *versus*Simeon Littlejohn and Margery Barbarick.

Upon an indictment against two persons for lascivious cohabitation, one of *the*parties be'ing married, such marriage must be proved by the record of the clergyman, or by witnesses present at the ceremony.

This was an indictment against the defendants for lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting together, the said *Margery*being alleged to be the wife of *Thomas Barbarick.*At the trial, the Solicitor-General offered to prove the marriage by the testimony of a sister of the said *Thomas.*She testified that, about twelve years since, the said *Thomas*and *Margery*left the witness’s house for the declared purpose of going to the house of a clergyman, about two miles distant, in order to be by him joined in marriage ; that, after *151an absence sufficient for the purpose, they returned, declaring that they were married ; and that they lived together as man and wife, having several children, until a year since, when the husband was committed to the state prison. The jury having found the defendants guilty, a new trial was moved for, on account of the admission of the said evidence. And it was resolved *by the whole Court,*that the evidence was insufficient. It was not the best which the case admitted. If these persons were married, there must be better evidence of the fact. It could be proved by the record of the clergyman, or, at any rate, by the testimony of persons actually present. The verdict was accordingly set aside, *(a)*

(a)

*Quære*whether, as the allegation was no otherwise material but as being ue scriptrve of the person intended, the proof of marriage was 'not sufficient. — Vide 3 *Starkie, Ev.*1580. — *Sull's*case, *Leach,*1005. — *Mary Graham’s*case, *Leach,*619.— *State*vs. *France, Overt. R.*434. — 2 *Phil. Ev.*286, 7th *Land.*ed.
**EXHIBIT - 32.2**

 

MOSSIMO,INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I Edwin Lewis, Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

(1)    The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.1, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| /s/    | Edwin Lewis                                   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Edwin Lewis                                   |
|   | Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
|   | May 19, 2006                                  |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEENPROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TOTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM10-Q TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERALINCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

 

----
#### * Commonwealth *versus*Caleb Trask.

When one is imprisoned for dangerously wounding another, so that his life is m danger, he is to be kept in prison, without bail, until it shall probably appear that the danger is over.

The grand jury gave information that the said *Caleb*had been imprisoned for dangerously wounding one *Byram Sampson,*of which wound the said *Byram*was still languishing, and it was uncertain whether he would not die of the same wound. Whereupon, the said *Caleb,*being set to the bar, upon the motion of *Morton, Attorney-General,*was remanded to the prison, to be there detained until it should probably appear that the danger was over (1)

(1)

 See 2 *Hale’s Hist. P. C.*134.
Exhibit 10.4


List of Holders


 


	
         

        Purchaser
	 	Subscription Amount
	Harold Wrobel	 	$400,000
	Thomas Staz Revocable Trust	 	$400,000
	Mohammed Hajibashi	 	$100,000
	Joshua Wood	 	$100,000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE SAMUEL ESTEP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR99-556) Submitted: October 9, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth M. Farber, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Mythili Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Samuel Estep appeals the ten year term of imprisonment imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to a single count of conspir acy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) & 846 (2000). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based upon Estep’s waiver of his right to appeal. Our review of the record discloses that Estep knowingly and voluntarily waived his statutory right to appeal by the terms of his plea agreement. See United States v. Marin , 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). This waiver precludes our review of his claim that the district court erred in finding that he was responsible for in excess of fifty grams of crack cocaine and sentencing him under § 841(b)(1)(A). SeeUnited States v. Brown , 232 F.3d 399, 402-03 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6158 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

authorize the acquisition and installation of gunshot detection systems 

under the matching grant program for school security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to authorize the acquisition and installation 

of gunshot detection systems under the matching grant 

program for school security. 

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 ‘‘21st Century School 

5 Protection Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6158 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF GUNSHOT DE2 TECTION SYSTEMS UNDER THE MATCHING 

3 GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECURITY. 

4 Section 2701(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

5 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10551(b)) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as para8 graph (10); and 

9 (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(9) Acquisition and installation of gunshot de12 tection systems.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Francisco CADAVIECO and Juanita Cadavieco, Appellants, v. CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-526

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

John Herrera, P.A., and John Herrera, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Key West, and Scott A. Cole, Miami, and Daniel M. Schwarz (Plantation), Plantation, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins*, 914 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2005) (holding that in order to be preserved for appellate review, issue must be presented to lower court and the specific legal argument raised); *Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA*, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (noting generally, a claim not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal); *Moore v. State*, 225 So.3d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding claims advanced on appeal were not preserved for appellate review where they were not raised with the trial court); *Fabregas v. Fernandez*, 215 So.3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). *See also**Ashear v. Sklarey*, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D181, --- So.3d ----, ---- n.3, 2018 WL 443199, at *3 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA January 17, 2018) (holding that an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief may not be considered on appeal); *General Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v. Campolo Realty & Mortg. Corp.*, 678 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (and cases collected) (holding that an appellate court is precluded from considering an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief).
Eric THOMAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3038

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
William Donald GRANT, Appellant, v. Charlotte M. GRANT, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1148

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.