alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gregory ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-933

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 25, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

At the age of seventeen, Gregory Robinson shot a former classmate in the head. The former classmate died, the State charged Robinson with second-degree murder, and Robinson pleaded guilty. The court sentenced Robinson to life in prison with judicial review after twenty-five years. Robinson now argues that the sentence was illegal.

To the extent Robinson argues the trial court was obligated to make specific findings as to each factor under section 921.1401-Florida's juvenile life-sentencing statute-his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in *Dortch v. State* , 266 So.3d 1240, 2019 WL 639221 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 15th, 2019). In *Dortch* , we held that judges imposing life sentences need not make specific findings for each factor listed in section 921.1401. Instead, courts must only "find on the record that they have (1) 'reviewed' and (2) 'considered' all relevant factors prior to imposing a life sentence." *Id.**;**see also* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.781(c). In Robinson's case, the court clearly reviewed and considered the relevant factors, including the likelihood of Robinson's rehabilitation. *See* § 921.1401(2)(j). We also reject Robinson's argument that-findings aside-the specifics of his case did not warrant a life sentence. *

*849AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.

*

We also reject Robinson's contention that the court failed to hold a competency hearing, a contention the record refutes.
Case 3:05-cr-00162-N Document 31 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50752

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN PATRICK VALDES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1326-1-PRM 

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

Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Patrick Valdes appeals his convictions and sentences

for conspiracy to smuggle aliens and transporting aliens. He

argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his

convictions and that the district court erred in applying the

eight-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6)(4). Valdes

argues that there was no evidence tying him directly to the July

27, 2002, load in which two people died while being transported
No. 03-50752

-2-

in the back of an unventilated and unrefrigerated trailer. He

also contends that the evidence was insufficient to tie him to

the conspiracy or to show that the deaths were the result of the

conspiracy. Valdes asserts that the eight-level enhancement for

conduct resulting in the death of any person should not have

applied because the Government did not establish causation or

that the deaths were reasonably foreseeable.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational trier

of fact could have found Valdes guilty of both offenses. Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). The evidence showed that

Valdes was involved in transporting illegal aliens within the

United States and conspired with numerous other people to

accomplish this purpose. Several members of the conspiracy were

involved in the fateful July 27, 2002, load in which two of the

aliens being transported died of heat stroke. See United States

v. Maceo, 947 F.2d 1191, 1198 (5th Cir. 1991). There also was

evidence directly linking Valdes to the load. 

Given the involvement of both Valdes and his co-conspirators

in the transportation of the aliens who died, the fact that the

deaths were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the

smuggling activities, as well as the fact that the deaths were

caused by the aliens being transported for profit, the district

court did not err in applying the eight-level enhancement in

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). See United States v. Garcia-Guerrero,
No. 03-50752

-3-

313 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Cuyler, 298 F.3d

387, (5th Cir. 2002). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      32.2






Statement
      Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
        undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of Hammonds Industries, Inc., Inc, a Nevada
        corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section
        906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of
        this
        report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934:
        Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
        2007.
  The
        undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
        information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects,
        the
        financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its
        operations.
   Date:  November
        19, 2007
 Sherry
        Couturier
 CFO/s/
        Sherry Couturier
Case 3:05-cv-00655-H Document 10 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 40
Case 3:05-cv-00576-R Document 4 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,573-02

EX PARTE CLINT WELDON WILSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F8775 IN THE 8 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY

Per curiam. ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion. 

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to life imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Wilson v. State,

No. 06-14-00021-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 7, 2014) (not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because he did not impeach a witness with inconsistent statements and did not discover evidence that

would have supported a self-defense claim. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,
2

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: November 16, 2016

Do not publish
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 294TH DISTRIC T COURT OF VAN ZANDT COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 27th

day of February, 2015 , th e cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

IN THE INTEREST OF K . W. AND P. W., CHIL DREN

NO. 12

- 14

- 00327

- CV; Trial Court No. 13

- 00267

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

was determined; and therein our said Court made its ord er in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the cou rt below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 8 th day of Jul y, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE:

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY 

MASTER FUND, L.P.

 §

 §

 §

 §

Case No. 23-31037-swe-7

 

DEBTOR

 §

 §

 §

 

 

Chapter 7

 

TRUSTEE’S NOTICE OF ASSETS 

AND REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF STATUS

The above titled and numbered proceeding was originally noticed as a no-asset case;

no chapter 7 claims bar date has been established. I hereby request that the status of this 

case be changed to an asset case. Please establish a chapter 7 bar date and notify creditors to file a 

Proof of Claim. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Scott M. Seidel

Scott M. Seidel, Esq.

State Bar No. 17999450

6505 W. Park Blvd, Ste. 306

Plano, Texas 75093

Telephone: 214-234-2500

scott@scottseidel.com

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 37 Filed 08/18/23 Entered 08/18/23 16:26:13 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Ampiah Eduah QUAINOO v. STATE

CR-16-0773

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Toshiba J. SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3376

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 9 PageID 403
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 9 PageID 404
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 3 of 9 PageID 405
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 4 of 9 PageID 406
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 5 of 9 PageID 407
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 6 of 9 PageID 408
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 7 of 9 PageID 409
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 8 of 9 PageID 410
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00932-P Document 20 Filed 09/09/05 Page 9 of 9 PageID 411
Exhibit 10.03  








Amendment to Funding Agreement  






        This
Amendment to the Funding Agreement (the “Funding Agreement”) dated August 8,
2003, between Targeted Genetics Corporation, a Washington corporation
(“Targeted”), and Biogen, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (“Biogen”)
is made as of July 14, 2003 by and between Targeted and Biogen. 



        The
parties hereby agree to delete the first sentence of Section 3.2.1(a) of the Funding
Agreement and replace it with the following sentence: 



        “Subject
to Section 3.2.2 of this Agreement, at any time and from time to time before September 15,
2003, at the election of Targeted in its sole discretion (the “Put
Option”) and upon its written request (the “Put
Request”), Biogen shall subscribe for and purchase (a “Share
Purchase”) a number of shares of Common Stock having an aggregate fair market
value less than or equal to the Remaining Value (as defined in subsection (b) of this
Section 3.2.1) at the time of such Put Request, at the price and on the terms and
conditions set forth in this Article3.” 



        All
other terms and provisions of the Funding Agreement shall remain unchanged. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Targeted and Biogen have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of
the date first above written. 





TARGETED GENETICS CORPORATION 



By:  /s/ H. Stewart Parker

Name:  H. Stewart Parker

Title:  President and CEO  






BIOGEN, INC.



By:  /s/ John W. Palmer

Name:  John W. Palmer

Title:  Sr. VP. Corporate Development
Jon Warren TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 4, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Forst, JJ. concur.
Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 8 PageID 205
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 8 PageID 206
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 8 PageID 207
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 8 PageID 208
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 8 PageID 209
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 6 of 8 PageID 210
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 7 of 8 PageID 211
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00621-P Document 28 Filed 11/03/05 Page 8 of 8 PageID 212
Order entered March 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00190-CV

CHRIS CARTER AND KAREN PIERONI, Appellants

V.

DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND CITY OF DALLAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07054

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ March 4, 2020 motion for an extension of 

time to file their notice of appeal. We GRANT the motion. The notice of appeal 

filed on February 10, 2020 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 3, 2006



| |  |                                      |  | 
| |  | ------------------------------------ |  | 
| |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II              |  | 
| |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                  |  | 
| |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director |  | 
| |  | (Principal Financial Officer)        |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of this Report.
# C_2019016EN.01002301.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-502/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary - Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale - Sale not carried out - Request for a deduction of input tax - Scope of VAT))

(2019/C 16/28)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 9 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a share disposal transaction, envisaged but not carried out, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for which the direct and exclusive reason does not lie in the taxable economic activity of the company concerned, or which does not constitute the direct, permanent and necessary extension of that economic activity, does not come within the scope of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2016

NO. 03-15-00384-CV

Crystal Bingham Hernandez, Appellant

v.

Tiffany Polley, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 27, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the 

case to the trial court for further proceedings. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Joshua PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2255

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 9, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Craig R. Atack, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6296

MICHAEL RICHARD D’ALESSANDRO,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; SUZYK MALAGARY; JOHN DOE, Case 

Manager; GRANT CLARK, Property Manager,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-00190-PJM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Richard D’Alessandro, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia 

Lisehora Kane, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, 

for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Richard D’Alessandro appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. D’Alessandro v. Montgomery County, No. 8:09-cv00190-PJM (D. Md. filed Jan. 20, 2009; entered Jan. 21, 2010). 

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
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Zaiser, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Corporation.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2006



By:

/s/ William J. ZaiserName:

William J. ZaiserTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2196

ELAINE M. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-00-76-1) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elaine M. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Marie Smith, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Elaine M. Foster appeals from the district court’s ordergranting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Foster’s claim of unconstitutional deprivation of property. 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 Foster v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. , No. CA-00-76-1 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 10, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Josefina GOMEZ, Appellant, v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-526

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.