alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TONY EDW ARD POW EL L, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D. S MI T H, Wa r d e n ; Mc F AD DE N, R egi on alD i re ct or, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17551 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 4 4 3 - S MM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n M . M c N a m e e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M ay14, 2013 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F eder alpri soner T on y E dw ar d P ow el l appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s a ct i on brou gh tun der Bi v e n s v . S i xU n kn o wn N am ed A gent

s of FederalB ureau o

f N arcot i cs , 40 3 U . S . 38 8 (19 71 ), al l egi ng that



# FI LED MA Y22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17551 2 d e f e n d a n ts s ub

je c te dh im to in h u m an e liv in g c o n d itio n s du r in g ap r is o n lo c k d o w n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo adi s m i s s a l f or fa ilu re to ex h au st ad m in istrativ e r em ed ies, an dfo r c learerro r th e d istrict co u rt’s u n d e r ly in g f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s . W y at t v . T e rhune , 3 1 5 F .3 d1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d P ow e l l ’ s a c t i on be c aus e P ow e l l di d not tim e lye x h au s t p r is o n g r ie v a n c e p r o c e du r e s c o n c e rn in g h is c la im . See W oo df ord v. N go , 548 U . S . 81, 93- 95 ( 2006) ( e xhaus t i on i s m anda t orya nd m us tbe done i n a tim e lym a n n e rc o n s is te n t w ith p r is o n p o lic ie s ) ; McKi nn eyv. Carey , 311 F . 3d 1198, 1199 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( apr i s one rm us te xhaus ta va i l abl e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s be f

or e f i l i ng ac om pl a i nt ; e xhaus t i on dur i ng the c our s e of l i t i ga t i on i s not s u f f ic ie n t) . P ow e l l ’ s m ot i on f

orl e a ve t o f

i l e s uppl e m e nt a l m a t e r i a l s , f i l e d on M ar c h 22, 2 0 1 3 , is d e n ie d . AF F I RME D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GENE W. JACKSON, # 306777, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-1301-N

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, ) 

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those

portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The

objections are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and DENIES as moot Petitioner’s

motion for an evidentiary hearing (docket #17).

Signed February 24, 2006.

_________________________________

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01301-N Document 20 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 190
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 2700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00681]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, January 10, 2025.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will conduct a meeting closed 
to the public to consider the Commission's response, if any, to show 
cause orders issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. Cir. 
No. 24-1293 (and consolidated case D.C. Cir. No. 24-1356), and D.C. 
Cir. No. 24-1294 (and consolidated case DC Cir No. 24-1357). 
Commissioners will attend the meeting. Commission staff members who 
provide technological support and other Commission staff may also be 
present as necessary. This meeting is closed to the public pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) on the basis of the Commission's ``participation 
in a civil action or proceeding.'' The Commission determined that 
shorter than usual notice for a meeting was required by official agency 
business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:  Sarah Stewart (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 8, 2025.
Sarah L. Stewart,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-00681 Filed 1-8-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
```
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00488- CR

Jasm ine Sh ante Quattlebaum , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 683 23, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R A N D ME M O R A N D UM O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

Appellan t J asm ine Shante Quattlebaum pleade d guilty to the offe nse of deadly conduct and the district court place d her on defe rre d-adjudica tion community super v i s i o n for a period of three year s. Subsequently , the State filed a motion to proce ed with an adjudication of g uilt. Quattlebaum plea ded true to the alleg ations in the m otion to adjudicate a nd was sente nced to f

our y ear s’ imprisonment. This appeal f ollowed. The rule s of appe llate proc edure provide, “ The trial court shall enter a ce rtification of the defe ndant’s rig ht of appea l eac h time it enter s a judgme nt of guilt or other appea lable order .” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2). We are require d “to examine a cer tification for defe ctiveness, and to use Rules 37.1 and 34.5(c) to obtain another cer tification, whene ver appropr i at e.” Dears v. State , 1 54 S.W .3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Tex. R. App. P
. 37.1, 34.5(c)). A d ef ec t i v ecer

tification is one “which is corr ect in form but which, when compar ed with the rec ord befor e the court, prove s to be inacc urate .” Id
.

The cer tification in this cause i n dicates that this is a plea- barg ain case and the d ef en d an t has no rig ht of appea l. This cer tification does not appea

r to confor

m to the rec ord. A plea- barg ain case i s define d as one in which a defe ndant’s plea was guilty or nol o contende re and the punishment did not exceed the punishment rec ommended by the prosec utor and ag ree d to by the defe ndant. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2). Her e, Quattlebaum did not plead guilty or nolo contende re. Instead, she ple aded tr

ue to the alleg ations in the S tate’s moti on to adjudicate
. See H argesheime r
v. State , 182 S.W .3d 906, 909-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that case in wh i ch d ef en d ant pleads true to alleg ations in motion to adjudicate is not considere d plea- barg ain case for purposes of Rule 25.2(a) (2)) ; see also Dears , 154 S.W
. 3 d at 6 1 3 (“[Rule 25.2(a) (2)] ref ers only to plea barg ains with reg ard to guilty pleas, not plea s of true on r evocation moti ons.”). In light of the appar ent discrepa ncy betwee n the cer

tification and t h e re cord, we abate the appea l and rema nd the cause to the distri ct co urt for entry of an amende d cer tification addre ssing Quattlebaum’ s rig ht of appea l f rom the judgme nt a djudicating guilt. Once enter ed, the
cer tification shall be included in a supplemental cler k’s rec ord and filed with this Court no later than October 19, 2015.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Abated a nd Remanded Filed: Oc tober 2, 2015 Do Not Publish
2
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

)

In re: )

) Chapter 7

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY MASTER )

FUND, L.P., ) Case No. 23-31037-swe7

Debtor. )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Esmeralda Aguayo, depose and say that I am employed by Kurtzman Carson 

Consultants LLC (“KCC”), the claims and noticing agent for the Reorganized Debtor in the 

bankruptcy case of Highland Capital Management, L.P., Case No. 19-34054-sgj11 (Bankr. N.D. 

Tex). 

On July 14, 2023, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of KCC caused 

the following documents to be served via Electronic Mail upon the service list attached hereto as 

Exhibit A:

• Highland Capital Management, L.P.’s Response and Joinder to Motion to

Transfer/Reassign Case [Docket No. 26]

• Highland Capital Management, L.P.’s Witness and Exhibit List with Respect to

Evidentiary Hearing to Be Held on July 19, 2023 [Docket No. 30]

Dated: January 23, 2024

/s/ Esmeralda Aguayo

Esmeralda Aguayo

KCC

222 N Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 300

El Segundo, CA 90245 

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 65 Filed 01/23/24 Entered 01/23/24 23:20:09 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A 

 

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 65 Filed 01/23/24 Entered 01/23/24 23:20:09 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Exhibit A

Chapter 7 Parties Service List

Served via Electronic Mail

Description CreditorName CreditorNoticeName Email

Counsel to Highland Capital 

Management, L.P.

Hayward & Associates 

PLLC

Melissa S. Hayward, Zachery 

Z. Annable

MHayward@HaywardFirm.com;

ZAnnable@HaywardFirm.com

Counsel to Trustee Passman and Jones Jerry C. Alexander alexanderj@passmanjones.com

Counsel to Debtor Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Hudson M. Jobe hjobe@qslwm.com

Trustee Seidel Law Firm Scott M. Seidel scott@scottseidel.com

Counsel to The Dugaboy 

Investment Trust Stinson LLP Deborah Rose Deitsch-Perez deborah.deitschperez@stinson.com

Counsel to The Dugaboy 

Investment Trust Stinson LLP Jeremy A. Root jeremy.root@stinson.com

In re Highland Select Equity Master Fund, L.P. 

Case No. 23-31037 Page 1 of 1

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 65 Filed 01/23/24 Entered 01/23/24 23:20:09 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
Case 3:04-cv-02506-M Document 1 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.2


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements on Form S-8

No. 333-47165 pertaining to the Precision Tune Stock Option Plan
No. 333-47169 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care Employee Stock Option Plan
No. 333-47171 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. Director Stock Option
Plan
No. 333-85877 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 1998 Outside
Directors' Stock Option Plan
No. 333-85879 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock
Option and Restricted Stock Plan
No. 333-39226 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 2000 Outside
Directors' Stock Plan

of our report dated September 8, 2000, except Note 15, as to which the date is
October 11, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Precision Auto Care, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 2001.



                                                      Ernst & Young LLP


September 27, 2001
McLean, Virginia

                                       52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARK C. DECKARD, #659726, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0517-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the independent 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.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

Signed this 6 day of October 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00517-P Document 13 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Garry K. McGuire Sr., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Avaya Inc;

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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
December 12, 2003

| |  | /s/GARRY K. MCGUIRE SR.Garry K. McGuire Sr. Chief Financial Officer and
Senior Vice President, Corporate Development
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2071

In Re: MICHAEL O. WATKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(4:08-cr-00123-RGD-TEM-4)

Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: December 12, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael O. Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael O. Watkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in acting on 

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and seeking an 

order from this court directing the district court to issue a 

ruling. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that 

an order and a final judgment addressing this motion were filed 

by the district court on September 9, 2011, and entered on 

September 12, 2011. Accordingly, although we grant Watkins’s 

motions to amend his petition and for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TAMMIE SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

VS.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1016-G

)

)

)

)

ORDER

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of

the court.

SO ORDERED.

August 5, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01016-G Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
Anthony R. FREGENTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2177

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
D.J.H., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4332

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:04-cv-01859-AH Document 7 Filed 10/14/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 19
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6064
JOHN BOWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; HUBERT CHAPMAN, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge; Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3017-3-BC) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, with further appeal to this court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), (c)(3) (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting Appellee's motion for judgment as a matter of law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the magistrate judge. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. *

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60753

MAXXAM, INC.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION,

Department of the Treasury,

Respondent-Appellee.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board

(88-1535-P)

December 10, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and STEWART Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In its appeal from the refusal of the Federal Home Loan Bank

Board (FHLBB) to grant a petition for review, Petitioner-Appellant

M AXXAM, Inc. asks us to (1) reverse, (2) grant its petition, and

(3) declare it to be the successful bidder, retroactively to 1988,2

for acquisition of United Savings Association of Texas (USAT).

MAXXAM asserts this bold proposition of unfathomable ramifications

—— characterized, with onl y the slightest hyperbole, as

“preposterou s” by counsel for USAT at oral argument before this

court

—— almost eight years after MAXXAM was advised in writing

that its effort t o acquire USAT had fallen short of the mark and

that Hyperion P artners had been the successful bidder. Despite

u rging in its written and oral arguments to this court tha t the

letter in question, which admittedly did not transmit a copy of the

“order” and which admittedly was not “served” as required, was not

sufficient actual knowledge to star t the applicable 30-day clock

running, MAXX AM nevertheless cannot satisfy (or at least has not

satisfied) us that its filing of the instant action was not

woefully untimely or that the timing of such filing

—— shortly

after the c ommencement of legal action by the government against

MAXXAM’s principal owner and executive —— was not too much of a

coincidence to be a coincidence. Indeed, the water that has passed

under the bridge since MAXXAM’s bid was spurned in favor of

Hyperion has been a veritable torrent, sweeping seven years of

irreversible change so far downstream that this Humpty Dumpty

cannot be put together again. Statutes have been repealed;

agencies have ceased to exist; and assets formerly held by the

target of MAXXAM’s and Hyperion’s acquisition efforts have been

divested and even made illegal.3

Our careful consideration of the record in this case, of the

helpful and elucidative briefs of counsel, and of the most able

oral arguments made to this court, convinces us beyond peradventure

that the reversal and relief sought by MAXXAM in this appeal are

unavailable and that the FHLBB committed no reversible error in

denying MAXXAM’s petition for review. The order appealed from is,

therefore, affirmed in all respects.

AFFIRMED.
Derrick CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 25, 2019

Derrick Cummings, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Ray, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Brenda M. BUSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-653

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

Michael J. Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this *Anders** appeal, we affirm Brenda M. Bush's convictions and sentences. But we remand with instructions that the trial court enter a written order finding Bush competent to proceed, *nunc pro tunc* to the date the trial court made its oral determination of competency. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) ("If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed."); *Mullens v. State* , 197 So.3d 16, 37-38 (Fla. 2016).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

*

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)
EX PARTE ALABAMA POWER COMPANY

(In re Alabama Power Company v. Ray Keller)

1170148

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 10, 2018

James A. Bradford, Ed R. Haden, and Jason B. Tompkins of Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, for petitioner.

Submitted on petitioner's brief only.

Joseph E. Powell, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Land Title Association, in support of the petitioner.

MENDHEIM, Justice.

The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied.

*66In denying the petition for the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion. *Horsley v. Horsley*, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973).

WRIT DENIED.

Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, and Main, JJ., concur.
Tom GRAHAM v. NOLA RENEWAL GROUP, LLC

NO. 2018-CC-0195

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

Denied.
Charles Thomas GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 19, 2018]

Charles Thomas Griffin, Bonifay, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*729Appellant Charles Griffin appeals his probation revocation and resulting sentence, raising twelve issues. We affirm the revocation and sentence and remand only for the entry of a written order specifying which conditions of the probation agreement were violated. As the State properly concedes, although the trial court orally pronounced the violations of probation, the record lacks a written order. *See**Robinson v. State* , 74 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("Even though the record is clear, a formal, written order specifying each condition of probation violated must be entered in this case. Therefore, we remand for entry of an order in conformity with this opinion.").

*Affirmed and remanded with directions.*

Warner, May and Forst, JJ., concur.