alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Juanes AYERS v. STATE

CR-16-1195

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CURTIS WAYNE JOHNSON, )

Defendant-Petitioner, )

 )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-262-N

 ) No. 3:03-CR-240-N

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff-Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge. The Court reviewed the findings, conclusions, and recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge de novo and finding no error, accepts the findings,

conclusions, and recommendation. 

SIGNED December 18, 2006.

____________________________________

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cr-00240-N Document 104 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 226
ORDER GRANTING GRUBER HURST’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

T-NETIX, INC., 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

VALUE-ADDED 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, 

v. 

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

 Counter-Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

 Case No. 3:05-CV-0654-D 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING GRUBER HURST’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

The Unopposed Motion of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, LLP (“Gruber Hurst”) 

for Leave to File Under Seal is granted, and Gruber Hurst’s Response to VAC’s Objections 

(the “Response”) shall be filed under seal. 

SIGNED April 26, 2013. 

 

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER 

CHIEF JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 325 Filed 04/26/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID 9120
STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrek MARTIN

NO. 2019-KK-0008

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00205
- CV

In re Bobby Oxford, Sr.

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FROM RUNNELS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Bobby Oxford, Sr., an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal
J us tice, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus directed to John H

. Best, the District Attorney of Runnels County, Texas

. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 22.221; see also T ex. R. App.
P. 52. 1.
T his Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over a district at torney. See
In re Smith , 03

- 19

- 00734

- CV, 2019 WL 6121405, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Nov. 19, 2019, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op. ) ; Roberts v. Lowry , 742 S.W.2d 747, 74 8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). By statu te, this Court has the authority t o issue a writ of mandamus against

“ a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district ” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Thu s, the District Attorney of Runnels County is not a party against whom

w e may issue a writ of mandamus unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Relator has not2

demonstrated that our jurisdiction is implicated here. We have no jurisdiction to grant r elator the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

____________ ____________________________ __ Melissa Goodwin , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly Filed: M ay 19 , 2021
Brian M. CASEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0570

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Regan C. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1720

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Ryan JACKSON

NO. 2019-KK-0260

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-161-CV

IN RE GARY F. CAMPANOZZI	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:  MCCOY, LIVINGSTON, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  July 6, 2006
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-10627

___________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOSE MANUEL MALFAVON; JESUS HINOJOSA CASTILLO,

a/k/a Chuey,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CR-00170)

______________________________________________________

May 12, 1997

Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant Castillo makes three

arguments: (l) the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions for conspiracy and for using a telephone to facilitate

the conspiracy; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to decrease

Castillo's offense level because he was a minor or minimal

participant in the conspiracy; (3) the conviction should be

reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
2

Our review of the record persuades us that the evidence was

sufficient to convict Castillo on both the conspiracy count and the

use of a telephone to facilitate a drug conspiracy. The sentencing

court did not abuse its discretion in declining to decrease

Castillo's offense level based on a minor or minimal role in the

conspiracy. We follow the general rule and decline to consider

Castillo's contention in this direct appeal that he was denied the

effective assistance of trial counsel.

As to Malfavon's contention that he was denied the effective

assistance of trial counsel, we also decline to review that

argument in this direct criminal appeal.

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 105 Filed 02/12/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 359
Case 3:04-cv-02599-G Document 20 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 220
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02599-G Document 20 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 221
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 38 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID 257
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 38 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID 258
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of KKR Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Saturnino S. Fanlo, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey B. Van Horn, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

November 8, 2006

 
|            |       | /s/ SATURNINO S. FANLO                                                                           |
|------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | ** ** | **Saturnino S. Fanlo   Chief Executive Officer   (Principal Executive Officer)**                 |
| ** ** | ** ** | ** **                                                                                       |
| ** ** | ** ** | ** **                                                                                       |
|       |       | /s/ JEFFREY B. VAN HORN                                                                          |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Jeffrey B. Van Horn   Chief Financial Officer   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)** |

 

 

 

----
SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Florida, and Jane West, Appellees.

No. 1D17-5239

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2016287EN.01003401.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/34

---

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

De Masi

Commission

(Case T-341/16)

(2016/C 287/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, by which he alleges an infringement of the rights of parliamentary representatives stemming from the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU and obligations to provide information.

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, TEP 2A: SBIR Review Meeting, February 24, 2025, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W534, Rockville, Maryland 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 26, 2024, FR Doc 2024-30711, 89 FR 105062.                

This notice is being amended to change the virtual meeting date from February 24, 2025, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. to March 10, 2025, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting times, format, and location will stay the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 10, 2025.

David W. Freeman,

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2025-00978 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 38 PageID 783
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 38 PageID 784
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 38 PageID 785
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 38 PageID 786
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 5 of 38 PageID 787
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 6 of 38 PageID 788
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 7 of 38 PageID 789
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 8 of 38 PageID 790
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 9 of 38 PageID 791
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 10 of 38 PageID 792
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 11 of 38 PageID 793
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 12 of 38 PageID 794
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 13 of 38 PageID 795
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 14 of 38 PageID 796
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 15 of 38 PageID 797
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 16 of 38 PageID 798
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 17 of 38 PageID 799
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 18 of 38 PageID 800
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 19 of 38 PageID 801
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 20 of 38 PageID 802
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 21 of 38 PageID 803
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 22 of 38 PageID 804
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 23 of 38 PageID 805
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 24 of 38 PageID 806
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 25 of 38 PageID 807
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 26 of 38 PageID 808
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 27 of 38 PageID 809
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 28 of 38 PageID 810
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 29 of 38 PageID 811
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 30 of 38 PageID 812
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 31 of 38 PageID 813
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 32 of 38 PageID 814
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 33 of 38 PageID 815
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 34 of 38 PageID 816
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 35 of 38 PageID 817
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 36 of 38 PageID 818
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 37 of 38 PageID 819
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 38 Filed 11/23/05 Page 38 of 38 PageID 820
# C_2017144EN.01002501.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl

(Case C-63/17)

(2017/C 144/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banque Solfea SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Jean-François Veitl

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 6,75772 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; [i]f the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at that particular decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated APR of 6,75 % to be considered correct?

1

2

Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale

Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1

---

(1)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

1

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

2

---
# C_2018094EN.01000201.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/2

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Windfinder R & L Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-395/16, Windfinder R & L Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-553/17 P)

(2018/C 094/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Windfinder R & L Co. KG (represented by: B. Schneider, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 24 January 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, J
Roland Vetter, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Brazil Gold Corp.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and I have:
 
 a)
            designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
      particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
      prepared;
 
 b)
            evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
      as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and
 
 c)
            presented
      in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
      controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date;
 
 5. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 
 a)
            all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
      summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
      and
 
 b)
            any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
      controls; and
 
 6. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 
 Date: May
14, 2010
 
 
 By:           /s/
J Roland Vetter
 
 J Roland
Vetter
 Chief
Financial Officer/Principal Financial Officer, principal accounting
officer
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted), Jane Shaw, the Chief Executive Officer of
Aerogen, Inc. (the "Company"), and Robert Breuil, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

This
Certification accompanies the Periodic Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Periodic Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

Dated:
April 14, 2004

|/s/JANE E. SHAW                      | /s/ROBERT S. BREUIL                     
|------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------
|Jane E. Shaw Chief Executive Officer | Robert S. Breuil Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STANLEY SHEPHERD, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1442-D

VS. §

 §

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, §

 §

Defendant. §

AMENDED JUDGMENT

In a memorandum opinion and order filed March 6, 2008, the court granted in part and

denied in part defendant Dallas County, Texas’ (“Dallas County’s”) motion for summary judgment.

The parties then tried plaintiff Stanley Shepherd’s (“Shepherd’s”) remaining claim to a jury, which

rendered a verdict on August 26, 2008 in favor of Shepherd.

Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that Shepherd recover judgment from Dallas County

in the sum of $890,336.00, together with post-judgment interest thereon at the rate of 2.18% per

annum.

Shepherd’s taxable costs of court, as calculated by the clerk of court, are assessed against

Dallas County.

Done at Dallas, Texas August 27, 2008.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

CHIEF JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01442-D Document 124 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID 933
Justin WARREN, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1077

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 15, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

AFFIRMED.
Jose D. ORTIZ-TORRES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1936

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Timothy Scott BOYLE v. STATE

CR-16-0636

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.