alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 the Quarterly Report of China Housing & Land Development,
      Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
      below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
                October 12, 2007
            By:
            /s/Wan
                YulongWan
              YulongChief
                Financial Officer
J. 

available, however, when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate 

remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 

P.3d at 558. Generally, an appeal is an adequate legal remedy precluding 

writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 

840, 841 (2004). 

Petitioners, to the extent that they are aggrieved from the 

district court's final judgment, will have a speedy and adequate remedy at 

law in the form of an appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition. NRAP 

21(b); see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 

P.2d 849, 851 (1991) ("[T]he issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

is purely discretionary with this court."). We further deny as moot 

petitioners' April 22, 2013, motion for a stay of the district court 

proceedings. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Gibbons 

Parra guirre -

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Law Office of Daniel Marks 

Andy J. Kay 

Cremen Law Offices 

Matthew L. Johnson & Associates 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) (947A 

2
|   | 1. | NetSol Technologies, Ltd.; Lahore, Pakistan. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | NetSol Connect (Pvt) Limited; Karachi, Pakistan. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | NetSol Technologies Europe, Ltd; Horsham, England. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | NetSol Abraxas, Inc.; Adelaide, Australia. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | NetSol-Innovation (Pvt) Limited; Lahore, Pakistan. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------|

|   | 6. | NetSol Technologies North America, Inc.; Alameda, California. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 7. | NTPK (THAILAND) Company Limited.; Bangkok, Thailand |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------|

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

FRANCIS TEJANI KUNDRA, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-05-CV-2425-N

ANGELA K. BARROWS, Director §

Dallas District Office, Citizenship §

and Immigrations Service, et al., §

§

Respondents. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. Petitioner’s motion to clarify and

motion for leave are denied.

Signed May 31, 2006.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02425-N Document 37 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 315
Anthony HARRIS v. STATE

2170216

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 12, 2018

Dismissed.
## NUMBER 13
- 2 4
- 0 0 127
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ RANDOLPH REED , A ppellant ,

v. CHARLIE CLARK AUTO CARE, LLC , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________ ON A PPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3

OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides This matter is before the court on appellant ’ s failure to file a brief. A fter granting appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file a brief, a ppellant ’s brief was due to be
filed on or before July 30 , 2024. On August 9 , 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant via email that his brief was past due. Appellant was further notified that if he
fail ed to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief within ten days from the date of the2

notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b), (c). On August 27 , 2024, the Clerk of the Court sent appellant notice that his brief was past due. Appellant was further notified that if he failed to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief within ten days from the date of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. This notice was entitled final notice and was sent via email
and certified mail , return receipt requested. On September 10, 2024 , the clerk ’ s final
notice w as returned to sender and marked “ return to sender , ” “ attempted

- not known , ” and
“unable to forward.” Copies of each notice were emailed to appellant’s only known email
address. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign any document filed and “ give the party ’ s mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any , and email address

. ” See id. R. 9.1(b). Appellant has not provided updated contact
information if the information currently on file for him is incorrect.
Furthermore , Texas R ule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving ten days ’ notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See
id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice
Delivered and filed on the 3 rd day of O ctober , 202 4

.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

805 

CA 14-02145 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH MASCIA, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND IN HIS CAPACITIES AS TENANT MEMBER OF 

BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS AND CANDIDATE FOR REELECTION AS A 

TENANT MEMBER OF BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING 

AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

 

V ORDER

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF BUFFALO/NIAGARA, INC., 

RESPONDENT, 

BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL., 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

 

KAVINOKY COOK LLP, BUFFALO (LAURENCE K. RUBIN OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

JOSEPH G. MAKOWSKI, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the

Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley Troutman, J.), entered June 25,

2014 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment, among other

things, directed respondents to reinstate petitioner as a candidate

for reelection to the position of Tenant Member. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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 the Quarterly Report of Swinging Pig Productions, Inc. a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Daniel Mirman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (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
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Swinging Pig Productions, Inc., and will be retained by Swinging Pig
Productions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
 
 /s/
      Daniel MirmanDaniel
      Mirman
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                    May
      20, 2008
22968027.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Adam Wolek (pro hac vice)

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713

Tel: 312.527.4063 

Fax: 312.966.8598

awolek@taftlaw.com

DAVID A. MAKMAN (SBN 178195)

david@makmanlaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN 

655 Mariner’s Island Blvd, Suite 306 

San Mateo, CA 94404 

Telephone: (650) 242-1560

Facsimile: (408) 716-3052

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Parkridge and Mabel Mak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On Behalf of PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong

Kong corporation, by Mabel Mak, and MABEL 

MAK, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, and 

PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR, an individual,

 Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07387-KAW

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL 

OF MOTION

Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 69 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 3
22968027.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO THIS COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE 

NOTICE THAT: Plaintiff hereby withdraws its motion for Brian Noack to withdraw on the grounds 

that no motion is needed to withdraw in light of the fact that Plaintiff continues to be represented by

other counsel. Therefore, the motion is hereby withdrawn pursuant to Civil L. R. 7.7(e) and Plaintiff 

will file a notice of change in counsel pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(c)(2)(C). 

.

Dated: July 20, 2018

By: s/ David Alan Makman . 

Adam Wolek 

awolek@taftlaw.com

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

111 E. Wacker Drive, 28th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Phone: (312) 836-4063

Fax: (312) 966-8598

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN

David A. Makman, SBN 178195

david@makmanlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Parkridge Limited

and Mabel Mak

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 69 Filed 07/20/18 Page 2 of 3
22968027.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that, on July 20, 2018, he caused this document to be

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 

of filing to counsel of record for each party.

By: /s/ David Alan Makman

 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 69 Filed 07/20/18 Page 3 of 3
Norman LAINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1949

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019

Norman Lainez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm and write only to commend the trial judge on his thorough and detailed order denying defendant's motion for post-conviction relief entered below.

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40079 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ARMANDO HUERTA

- TORRES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 638

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Huerta

Torres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Huerta

- Torres h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 28, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40079 Document: 00513695499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2016No. 16

- 40079

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to wit hdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40079 Document: 00513695499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2016
Axel INOSTROZA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3369

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
II 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 32 

To clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in Texas 

and California. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2025 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. PADILLA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify where court may be held for certain district courts 

in Texas and California. 

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 ‘‘Local Access to Courts 

5 Act’’ or ‘‘LACA’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURTS. 

7 Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (3), by in9 serting ‘‘and College Station’’ before the period at the end. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 32 IS

1 SEC. 3. ORGANIZATION OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS. 

2 Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is 

3 amended by inserting ‘‘and El Centro’’ after ‘‘at San 

4 Diego’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Order entered September 3 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00542
- CV CAROLYN WAID, Appellant

V. TARGET CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cou rt at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 00729
- E

O RDER
T he clerk ’ s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated June 23, 2020 , we notified the Dallas C ounty C lerk that the clerk’s record was o verdue. We
directed the Dallas County Cle rk to file the clerk’s record within thi rty days. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, this Court OR DERS the Dallas County Clerk to file, within
TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order, eit her the clerk’s record or writte n verification that appellant is not entitled to pr oceed without payment of costs andhas not paid for or made arrangements to pa y for the record. We notif y appellant that if we receive verifica tion s he is not entitled to proceed without payment of

co sts a nd has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Co urt to send a copy of this or der to:
John F. Warren Dallas Co unty Clerk All par ti es

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### ZOLTEK CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Petitioner. Zoltek Corporation, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. United States, Defendant-Respondent.

Nos. MISC. 759, MISC. 761.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

Anne Murphy, Principal Attorney, Scott R. Mcintosh, of Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Dean A. Moneo, Principal Attorney, John S. Mortimer, of Counsel, Wood, Phillips, Chicago, IL, James F. Davis, of Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Zoltek Corporation petitions for permission to appeal an order certified by the Court of Federal Claims as involving a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). The United States *712responds and petitions for permission to appeal another order certified by the Court of Federal Claims. Zoltek opposes. The United States replies.

Zoltek sued the United States regarding the United States’ alleged use of a process for which Zoltek has a patent. In one order, the Court of Federal Claims decided that Zoltek could not sue for compensation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) because the claim arose in another country. In a second order, the Court of Federal Claims decided that it did have jurisdiction over Zoltek’s complaint because it could be brought as a takings case pursuant to the Tucker Act. Thereafter, the Court of Federal Claims certified both orders for permissive appeal.

In its discretion, this court determines whether it will grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order certified by a trial court. *See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation,*903 F.2d 822 (Fed.Cir.1990). In this ease, the circumstances warrant granting the petitions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petitions for permission to appeal are granted. The United States will be designated as the appellant and Zoltek will be designated as the cross-appellant.
Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 1 of 16   PageID 2238

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 2 of 16   PageID 2239

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 3 of 16   PageID 2240

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 4 of 16   PageID 2241

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 5 of 16   PageID 2242

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 6 of 16   PageID 2243

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 7 of 16   PageID 2244

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 8 of 16   PageID 2245

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 9 of 16   PageID 2246

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 10 of 16   PageID 2247

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 11 of 16   PageID 2248

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 12 of 16   PageID 2249

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 13 of 16   PageID 2250

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 14 of 16   PageID 2251

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 15 of 16   PageID 2252

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-4   Filed 03/30/07    Page 16 of 16   PageID 2253
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 the Quarterly Report of Our Glass, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. April 4, 2008 /s/ Cosmo Palmieri Chief Financial Officer
Statement on Pride Month and Flying the Pride Flag at FCA

Vincent G. Logan

FCA Board Chairman and CEO

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

June 8, 2023

June is Pride Month. It is an opportunity to honor and celebrate the generations of LGBTQI+ 

individuals who fought to make our country more inclusive and more vibrant, including 

those who served our nation to preserve our freedom. It is also a moment to reflect on the 

trials many have faced and continue to face in day-to-day life—experiences I know 

personally—just for being their true selves. We have made tremendous progress, but we 

still have work to do.

In President Biden’s proclamation recognizing Pride Month on May 31, he said, “I call upon 

the people of the United States to recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, 

to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride 

high.” In keeping with the president’s sentiment, and at the request of our PRIDE at FCA 

Special Emphasis Program, I raised the first official Pride flag at our headquarters earlier 

this week.

This country, and we as an agency, are stronger when our public servants reflect the 

diversity that makes this country great. FCA respects and is proud of our PRIDE members, 

and we recognize their contributions to this agency during Pride Month and beyond.

Thank you.
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 4 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 5 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 6 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 7 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 8 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 9 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 10 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 11 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 12 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 13 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 14 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 15 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 16 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 17 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 18 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 19 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 20 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 21 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 22 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 23 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 24 of 25
Case 4:16-cv-07299-JSW Document 1 Filed 12/22/16 Page 25 of 25
Reina FONSECA, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-1493

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.