alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order Granting Trustee’s Application for Employment of Attorney Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

_____________________________________

In Re:

VIABLE CONTRACTORS, LLC,

Debtor.

_____________________________________

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 24-40547-elm7

ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S APPLICATION FOR

EMPLOYMENT OF ATTORNEY

On this day, came on for consideration the Trustee’s Application for Employment of 

Attorney [Docket No. 5] (the “Application”), filed by Behrooz P. Vida as Chapter 7 Trustee (the 

“Trustee”) seeking approval of the Court to allow CAVAZOS HENDRICKS POIROT, P.C. (the 

“Firm”) to represent the Trustee, as more particularly set forth in the Application and 2014 

Statement on file in this matter. No notice of hearing on said Application need be given and no 

objections have been filed. The Trustee and the Firm have represented to this Court that the Firm 

holds or represents no interest adverse to the Debtors or the estate, that the Firm is disinterested, 

and that its employment is in the best interest of the estate. It is therefore,

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Signed May 20, 2024

______________________________________________________________________

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 24-40547-elm7 Doc 8 Filed 05/21/24 Entered 05/21/24 15:37:35 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Order Granting Trustee’s Application for Employment of Attorney Page 2 of 2

ORDERED, that the Trustee is authorized to employ the Firm as counsel pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. § 327(a), with all fees payable subject to interim and/or final application to and approval 

of this Court; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Firm shall comply in all respects with N.D. TX L.B.R. 2016.1.

### END OF ORDER ###

Order submitted by:

Lyndel Anne Vargas

State Bar No. 24058913

CAVAZOS HENDRICKS POIROT, P.C.

Suite 570, Founders Square

900 Jackson Street

Dallas, TX 75202

Phone: (214) 573-7344

Fax: (214) 573-7399

Email: LVargas@chfirm.com

Proposed Attorneys for Behrooz P. Vida, Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 24-40547-elm7 Doc 8 Filed 05/21/24 Entered 05/21/24 15:37:35 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 49 

Prohibiting Members of the House of Representatives from bringing or displaying a flag of a foreign nation on the floor of the House, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2025 

Mrs. CAMMACK (for herself, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. BOST, Ms. 

MALLIOTAKIS, Ms. HAGEMAN, Mr. BABIN, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. 

COLLINS, Mrs. LUNA, Ms. LEE of Florida, Mr. VAN ORDEN, Mr. 

LANGWORTHY, and Mrs. BICE) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Prohibiting Members of the House of Representatives from 

bringing or displaying a flag of a foreign nation on 

the floor of the House, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, 

2 PROHIBITION WITH RESPECT TO FLAG OF A FOREIGN

3 NATION ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE

4 SECTION 1. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—During a session of the 

7 House of Representatives, a Member, Delegate, or 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 49 IH 

1 Resident Commissioner may not bring or display on 

2 the floor of the House any flag of a foreign nation. 

3 (2) APPLICATION.—Except as provided under 

4 subsection (b), the prohibition under subsection (a) 

5 shall apply to a flag of a foreign nation regardless 

6 of the size of the flag. 

7 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection 

8 (a) shall not apply— 

9 (1) to a flag of a foreign nation worn as a lapel 

10 pin by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis11 sioner; or 

12 (2) to a depiction of a flag of a foreign nation 

13 used as part of an exhibit by a Member, Delegate, 

14 or Resident Commissioner during a speech or debate 

15 under the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

16 (c) ENFORCEMENT.—The Sergeant-at-Arms of the 

17 House of Representatives is charged with the enforcement 

18 of the prohibition under subsection (a). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KERRY ALLISON, Individually §

and on behalf of All Others Similarly §

Situated §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-05CV1325-N

§

DR PEPPER BOTTLING §

COMPANY OF TEXAS, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

On the this day came on to be heard Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice the

Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause. It appears to the Court that the Motion should

be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, 

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Defendant Dr Pepper Bottling Company

of Texas are hereby dismissed with prejudice to their rights to reinstate the same, and that court costs

are hereby taxed against the party incurring the same.

SIGNED December 29, 2006.

____________________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING

Case 3:05-cv-01325-N Document 35 Filed 12/29/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 354
STATE of Louisiana v. Donald K. RUNNELS

NO. 2019-KH-0307

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).

GENOVESE, J., recused.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY TO PURSUE LITIGATION - PAGE 1 OF 2

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

CARL GERARD DORVIL,

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 23-30771-sgj7

Chapter 7

ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION OF

CARL GERARD DORVIL FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY

On September 5, 2023, the Emergency Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (the 

“Motion”) was filed by Carl Gerard Dorvil (the “Debtor”), the debtor in the above-referenced case. 

The Court finds that the Motion was properly served pursuant to the Federal and Local Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure, and that good cause exists for the entry of the following order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion is granted as provided herein; and it is 

further

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 48-1 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 20:14:44 Desc

Proposed Order Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY TO PURSUE LITIGATION - PAGE 2 OF 2

ORDERED that the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is modified as set forth 

herein so that the Debtor may proceed against Charles Mason and Kathleen Mason in the State 

Court Action1to prosecute his existing post-judgment rights and to file an appeal of the Judgment, 

if necessary; and it is further

ORDERED that the fourteen (14) day stay required under Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3) is 

hereby waived.

# # # END OF ORDER # # #

Submitted by:

Melissa S. Hayward

 Texas Bar No. 24044908

 MHayward@HaywardFirm.com

HAYWARD PLLC

10501 N. Central Expy, Ste. 106

Dallas, Texas 75231

Tel./Fax: (972) 755-7100

Special Counsel for the Debtor

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Motion.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 48-1 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 20:14:44 Desc

Proposed Order Page 2 of 2
Camille LANDRY, et al. v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC, et al.

NO. 2013-C-0849

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., recused.
Anthony CESPEDES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-105255 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account One of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to the
financial statements of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and of
our report dated February 21, 2003, relating to the financial statements of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account One, appearing
in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading
"Independent Public Accountants" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
July 31, 2003
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of OmniReliant Holdings Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Paul Morrison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      February 5, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Paul
      MorrisonPaul
      MorrisonChief
      Financial Officer
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 146 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit Federal reserve banks from 

paying interest on excess reserves. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit Federal 

reserve banks from paying interest on excess reserves. 

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 ‘‘Prohibition on IOER 

5 Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF EARNINGS ON SUR7 PLUS RESERVES. 

8 Section 19(b)(12) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 

9 U.S.C. 461(b)(12)) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 146 IH

1 (1) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘REQUIRED RE2 SERVE’’ before ‘‘BALANCES’’; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after 

4 ‘‘Balances’’ the following: ‘‘of reserves required to be 

5 maintained by a depository institution under para6 graph (2) that are’’; 

7 (3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub8 paragraph (D); and 

9 (4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(C) PROHIBITION ON OTHER EARN12 INGS.—A Federal reserve bank may not pay 

13 earnings on balances maintained at a Federal 

14 reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository in15 stitution except as provided under this para16 graph.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinion s filed May 14 , 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00341

- CV

CHARLES FRANKS , Appellant

V.
LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 49231

CONCURRING OPINION

Because this court is bound by Tex. Ins. Code § 1952.104(3)
, the terms of the policy , and precedent, I concur in the majority opinion. However, automobile insurance contracts, such as the one in this case, should contain clear definitions and exclusion language that will be understood by the average policyholder, thereby allowing the policyholder to make a truly informed decision about the coverage purchased.2 The purpose of the uninsured motorist statute is protection of insured motorists from irresponsible underinsured, uninsured, or unidentified motorists. Jankowiak v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 201 S.W.3d 200, 210 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (citing Strac ener v. United Servs. Auto. Ass ’ n, 777 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tex. 1989 )). In this case, the motorist who caused the accident was unidentified, and there was no physical contact with appellant’s vehicle. Our

courts have consistently held physical contact between the insured and any
unidentified vehicle is required for coverage to apply under the uninsured/underinsured provisions of a policy such as the one in this case. Goen v. Trinity Universal In.Co. of Kansas, In c

. , 715 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Texarkana, 1986, no writ); Mayer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co . 870 S.W. 2d 623, 625 (Tex. App

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 1994, reh. o verruled ). The stated purpose of requiring actual physical in Tex. Ins. Code § 1952.104(3) is to prevent fraudulent claims against “phantom cars
, ” but in this case there is no dispute as to appellant’s
claim that an unidentified driver existed and caused this wreck.
Policyholders should be aware, when purchasing uninsured/underinsured coverage, that claims involving an unidentif ied, but undisputedly negligent driver, whose vehicle does not make physical contact with the unidentified driver’s vehicle, may be excluded from coverage, especially when the terms of the policy make it difficult to ascertain coverage.

/s/ Margaret “Meg” Poissant Justice
Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant. (Poissant , J. majority).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 16, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 587 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1059, K2025-1058.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00866 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
STATE of Louisiana v. Michael D. ELLIS

No. 2018-KH-0845

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Applicant 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. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ.
Amendment No. 1 to 2002 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.7 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE EDGE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. 
 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 Pursuant to Section 4.5 of the Edge Technology Group, Inc. 2002 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. The name of the Plan is hereby amended to be: “Axtive Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan”. 
  
 2. Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 3.1. Number of Shares. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved and
available for issuance under this Plan shall be 17,000,000, subject to adjustment as set forth in Section 3.4. 
  
 3. Immediately upon the effectiveness of the 1-for-10 reverse stock split approved by the Board of Directors of Axtive Corporation as of the date hereof,
and without any further action by any party, Section 3.1 of the Plan shall be further amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 3.1. Number of Shares. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved and available for issuance under this
Plan shall be 5,000,000, subject to adjustment as set forth in Section 3.4. 
  
 4. The definition of Company in Section 13 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “Company” means Axtive Corporation, a Delaware corporation. 
  
 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect as originally executed and
delivered. Any reference in the Plan to the “Plan” shall refer to the Plan as amended by this Amendment No. 1. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to those terms in the Plan.

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Amendment effective as of May 23, 2003. 
  

	 AXTIVE CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	         /s/    DAVID N. PILOTTE        


	 	 	 David N. Pilotte, Executive Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer ofAdvance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(Adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash AdvanceCenters, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, WilliamM. Webster, IV, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| May 16, 2005 |                              |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------|
|              | /s/  WILLIAM  M. WEBSTER, IV |
|              | William M. Webster, IV            |
|              | *Chief Executive Officer*         |

 

----
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.M.J., a child, * From the 3 18 th District Court

o f Midland County

Trial Court No. FM 63,581

.

No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 0 47

- C V * August 1, 2019

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C. J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey

, C. J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

( Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Opinion filed March 26, 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________
No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 187

- CV

__________

JARED CHAVEZ , Appellant

V. FLARE INDUSTRIES, LLC D/B/A AEREON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238 t h District Court Midland County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. CV5 5597

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The parties have filed in this court a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. In
the motion, the parties state that they “ have resolved all issues pending between them
regarding the subject matter of this appeal

. ” The parties request that we dismiss this
appeal and tax costs aga inst the party incurring same

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1.
The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

.

March 26, 2020 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LOUIS EDWARD SPEARMAN )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-1471-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed this 30 day of August, 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01471-P Document 5 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 46
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

GRISELDA DE HOYOS, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:04-CV-898-Y

 §

GINNY VAN BUREN, Warden, §

FMC-Carswell, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of petitioner Griselda De Hoyos, along with

the March 25, 2005, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge gave the

parties until April 15 to file written objections to the findings,

conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this order, no

written objections have been filed. 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this

case, and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge filed on March 25, 2005. The Court concludes that the

petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied for the reasons

stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED.

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00898-Y Document 7 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 117
2

It is further ORDERED that petitioner Griselda De Hoyos’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and

is hereby, DENIED.

SIGNED April 26, 2005.

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00898-Y Document 7 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 118
Dionntez BYNER v. STATE

CR-16-1117

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.