alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Linda DAVANZO and Andrew Davanzo, Appellants, v. BANKUNITED, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D18-1985

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 18, 2019

Robert J. Hauser of Pankauski Hauser PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Christopher J. Hoertz, Daniel M. Herrera and Gary M. Singer of Law Firm of Gary M. Singer, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
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

 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINES TO FINALIZE SETTLEMENT 

AND VACATING DEADLINE TO ANSWER – CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00163-YGR 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

KYNDL BUZAS, RAUDEL 

COVARRUBIAS, and DANIEL RUNIONS, 

individually and on behalf of all similarly 

situated current and former employees, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Phillips 66 Company and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 4:17-cv-00163-YGR

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINES 

TO FINALIZE SETTLEMENT AND 

VACATING DEADLINE TO ANSWER 

 

Case 4:17-cv-00163-YGR Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 2
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

 1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINES TO FINALIZE SETTLEMENT 

AND VACATING DEADLINE TO ANSWER – CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00163-YGR 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Parties’ Stipulation Extending Deadlines to Finalize 

Settlement and Vacating Deadline to Answer, finds good cause appearing and hereby ORDERS that: 

 (a) The Stipulation is GRANTED; 

(b) Defendant’s deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint shall be vacated; 

(c) The Parties obligations to make disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and 

Civil L.R. 3-15 or under any other deadlines associated with the responsibilities of the Case 

Management Conference, including but not limited to obligations under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16, Rule 26(f), and Civil L.R. 16-3 and 16-9, shall be vacated; 

(c) The Case Management Conference will be held on October 23, 2017; 

(d) However to the extent that the Parties file a notice of settlement on or before October 16, 

2017, the Parties instead will file a joint statement requesting a hearing date for the a motion 

of preliminary approval and the Case Management Conference date will be continued. 

Dated: ____________________________________________ 

 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge 

September 27, 2017

Case 4:17-cv-00163-YGR Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 Page 2 of 2
Deborah J. WINFREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3725

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2019

Deborah J. Winfree, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
C.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1443

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0001039962
<NAME>                                       IMMECOR CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                    1
       
<S>                          <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                YEAR                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1996          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-1-1997           JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1996          DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>              1                    1
<CASH>                       54677                164125
<SECURITIES>                 0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                390357               530904
<ALLOWANCES>                 10000                10478
<INVENTORY>                  129421               343158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             589604               1044683
<PP&E>                       61740                76556
<DEPRECIATION>               19780                21601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               647802               1099638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        379024               609818
<BONDS>                      0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0                    0
<PREFERRED>                  0                    0
<COMMON>                     320500               256602
<OTHER-SE>                   (51722)              233218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 647802               1099638
<SALES>                      3591382              5360090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             3591382              5360090
<CGS>                        3137320              4096793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                3581981              4895503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             (65244)              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           3786                 2541
<INCOME-PRETAX>              71581                466040
<INCOME-TAX>                 18800                181100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          52781                284940
<DISCONTINUED>               0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0                    0
<CHANGES>                    0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 52781                284940
<EPS-PRIMARY>                .022                 .118
<EPS-DILUTED>                .022                 .118
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0645

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

JUNE LEE WOLVERINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until March 28, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 24 2022

02/24/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0645
F.K. and D.K. v. E.K. and V.K.

2160837

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 7, 2018

Dismissed.
MANAGING DIRECTOR

MARK STEPHENS, Managing Director

Mindy Ginsburg, Deputy Managing Director

Sanford Williams, Deputy Managing Director

Daniel Daly, Deputy Managing Director

Thomas Buckley, Assistant Managing Director/Chief of Staff/Sr. Counsel for Policy

Warren Firschein, Counsel

Celia Lewis, Counsel

Sally Stone, Counsel

Office of Managing Director

December, 2023

HUMAN RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

ELLEN STANDIFORD,

CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL

OFFICER (CHCO)

Holly Finney, Deputy

FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

JAE SEONG, CHIEF

James Lyons, Deputy

Tim Siekierka, Deputy

ENTERPRISE

ACQUISITION CENTER

SUNNY DIEMERT,

SENIOR PROCUREMENT

EXECUTIVE (SPE)

PERFORMANCE &

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

VANESSA LAMB, CHIEF

OFFIC

SEC

MARLEN

SEC

RECRUITMENT &

STAFFING

SERVICE CENTER

Kristin Young

PAYROLL & BENEFITS

SERVICE CENTER

Carol Edwards

LABOR RELATIONS &

PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

SERVICE CENTER

Jayne Ricco

LEARNING &

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICE CENTER

Curtis Everett

PLANS AND

PROGRAMS

Georgette Sumpter,

DCIO

TECHNOLOGY

EXECUTION

Don Tweedie, DCIO

BUDGET CENTER

Rick Robinson

TRAVEL & OPERATIONS

GROUP

Tim Dates

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

OPERATIONS GROUP

Hua Lu

COMPLIANCE &

OVERSIGHT GROUP

Sandeep Khanna

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

& REPORTING

GROUP

Linda Ning

REVENUE &

RECEIVABLES

OPERATIONS GROUP

Cheryl Collins

AGE

PUBLICAT

Letici

INFOR

RESOUR

REF

INFOR

CE

Melis

FCC 

She

OFFICE OF CHIEF

INFORMATION OFFICER

ALLEN HILL, CHIEF

INFORMATION OFFICER

(CIO)

CYBERSECURITY

Chris Webber, CISO

Shelton Rainey, DCISO
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ECOFACTOR, INC., Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC, ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC, DBA ECOBEE, Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1971

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

- 00054.

-------------------------------------------------
ECOFACTOR, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC, Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2022

- 1974 Case: 22-1971 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 11/30/2023ECOFACTOR , INC

. v. GOOGLE LLC 2

-------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20

- cv

- 00075

- ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

ECOFACTOR, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GOOGLE LLC, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2023

- 1101

______________________ Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20

- cv

- 00075

- ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________
ON STIPULATION

______________________
O R D E R

On November 28, 2023, Ecofactor , Inc, Google LLC,and Ecobee Technologies ULC stipulated to voluntary dismiss al of Appeal Nos. 2022

- 1971, 2022

- 1974.
The parties, having so agreed,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Appeal No. 2022

- 1971 is dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side to bear their own costs. Case: 22-1971 Document: 62 Page: 2 Filed: 11/30/2023ECOFACTOR , INC

. v. GOOGLE LLC 3

(2) Appeal No. 2022

- 1974 is dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side to bear their own costs.
(3) On or before December 1, 2023 , Google LLC andEcofactor, Inc. shall file responses to the notice of oral argument in Appe al No. 2023

- 1101.
(4) The official captions as modified, are reflected in this order.

November 30, 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to Appeal Nos. 2 022

- 1971 and 2022

- 1974 only): November 30, 2023

. Case: 22-1971 Document: 62 Page: 3 Filed: 11/30/2023
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 annual report of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas R. Staab, II, 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 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.



Date: March 14, 2008

/s/    THOMAS R. STAAB,
IIThomas R. Staab, II Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL W. BRIGGS §

§

Movant, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-MC-070-G 

§ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This is a miscellaneous action brought by Michael W. Briggs, a resident of Dallas County,

Texas, to quash a subpoena issued by a federal district court in Hawaii requiring him to travel more

than 3,700 miles to testify in the retrial of a criminal tax fraud case. United States v. Boulware, No.

CR 99-00239-ER. As grounds for his motion, Briggs contends that compliance with the subpoena

would be oppressive and unreasonable because he is "a self-employed businessman who does not

earn money if he is not working." (Mot. at 2, ¶ II(A)). Briggs also points out that both the

government and defense counsel had an opportunity to question him when he testified at the first

trial. Because the subpoena compels his appearance in Hawaii on June 27, 2005, Briggs requests

expedited consideration of his motion.

The court sua sponte notes that Briggs has failed to establish any basis for bringing this

action in the Northern District of Texas. The subpoena in question was issued by the United States

District Court for the District of Hawaii--the court where the underlying criminal case is pending.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, which governs subpoenas in criminal cases, does not specify

 

 Case 3:05-mc-00070-G-BD Document 4 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 23
1 By contrast, the rule governing subpoenas in civil actions provides that "the court by which a subpoena was

issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it . . . subjects a person to undue burden." FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv).

2 The court also questions, without deciding, whether a witness in a criminal case may file a motion to quash

a trial subpoena on the ground that it is unreasonable or oppressive. See 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 275 at 253 (3d ed. 2000) (noting that Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) applies only to subpoenas duces tecum).

where a motion to quash a trial subpoena should be filed.1 Nor has this court been able to locate any

statute, rule, or case law addressing the issue. In the absence of controlling legal authority, the court

believes that a motion to quash a trial subpoena in a criminal case must be filed in the court that

issued the subpoena. 

Accordingly, Briggs' motion for expedited hearing is granted. His motion to quash subpoena

in a criminal case is denied without prejudice.2

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-mc-00070-G-BD Document 4 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 24
# C_2017283EN.01002201.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Hellenic Republic v Leo Kuhn

(Case C-308/17)

(2017/C 283/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Hellenic Republic

Defendant and appellant on a point of law:

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Leo Kuhn

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Must Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that:

1

| 1. | even in the case — as here — of the repeated contractual transfer of a claim, the place of performance within the meaning of that provision is determined by the first contractual agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

even in the case — as here — of the repeated contractual transfer of a claim, the place of performance within the meaning of that provision is determined by the first contractual agreement?

| 2. | in the case of the assertion of a claim seeking compliance with the terms of a government bond such as that specifically issued by the Hellenic Republic in the present case, or seeking damages for non-fulfilment of that claim, the actual place of performance is established immediately upon the payment of interest from that government bond into an account of a person holding a domestic securities portfolio? |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the case of the assertion of a claim seeking compliance with the terms of a government bond such as that specifically issued by the Hellenic Republic in the present case, or seeking damages for non-fulfilment of that claim, the actual place of performance is established immediately upon the payment of interest from that government bond into an account of a person holding a domestic securities portfolio?

| 3. | the fact that a legal place of performance within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation was established by the first contractual agreement precludes the assumption that the subsequent actual performance of a contract establishes a — further — place of performance within the meaning of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

the fact that a legal place of performance within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation was established by the first contractual agreement precludes the assumption that the subsequent actual performance of a contract establishes a — further — place of performance within the meaning of that provision?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

1

---
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 63 

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 

2020. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 

Mr. MARSHALL (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LEE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. JOHNSON, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President 

on March 13, 2020. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emer4 gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency de5 clared by the finding of the President on March 13, 2020, 

6 in Proclamation 9994 (85 Fed. Reg. 15337) is hereby ter7 minated. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STA T ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 2051

REGINALD EVANS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
SUMTER COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:23

- cv - 03918

- JFA )

Submitted : Ju ly 25 , 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judge s
.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Danny Calvert Crowe, CROWE LAFAVE LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2051 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Reginald Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to state court

. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Evans v.
S

umter C nty

. Election Comm’n , No. 3 :2 3

- cv - 0 3918

- JFA (D. S.C. Oct. 2, 2023 ). 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.
AFFIRME D USCA4 Appeal: 23-2051 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky George FOUNTAINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-3354.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 13, 2004.

Nancy M. Caplinger, Randy M. Hendershot, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael G. Katz, Fed. Public Defender, Howard A. Pincus, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Ricky George Fountaine appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We vacate Fountaine’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Fountaine pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The possession occurred on January 8, 2002. When his presentence report was prepared, the probation officer calculated his total offense level at 21 and his criminal history category at VI, resulting in a guideline range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months. The court sentenced him to seventy-seven months’ imprisonment.

Fountaine disputes the criminal history calculation, arguing that it incorrectly included all three sentences imposed by Kansas courts in the 1980s, outside of the fifteen-year period provided in United States Sentencing Commission, *Guidelines Manual*(“USSG”) § 4A1.2(e)(l) (2001).1*660The government agrees and asks that this case be remanded for resentencing with the criminal history calculation revised as asserted by Fountaine. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for resentencing.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

. Section 4A1.2(e)(l) provides that, for the purpose of calculating criminal history, the following prior sentences are counted:

> *(1)*Any prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month that was imposed within fifteen years of the defen*660dant’s commencement of the instant offense is counted. Also count any prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month, whenever imposed, that resulted in the defendant being incarcerated during any part of such fifteen-year period.

USSG § 4A1.2(e)(1).
Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 1 of 22   PageID 2254

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 2 of 22   PageID 2255

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 3 of 22   PageID 2256

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 4 of 22   PageID 2257

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 5 of 22   PageID 2258

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 6 of 22   PageID 2259

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 7 of 22   PageID 2260

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 8 of 22   PageID 2261

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 9 of 22   PageID 2262

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 10 of 22   PageID 2263

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 11 of 22   PageID 2264

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 12 of 22   PageID 2265

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 13 of 22   PageID 2266

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 14 of 22   PageID 2267

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 15 of 22   PageID 2268

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 16 of 22   PageID 2269

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 17 of 22   PageID 2270

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 18 of 22   PageID 2271

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 19 of 22   PageID 2272

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 20 of 22   PageID 2273

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 21 of 22   PageID 2274

Case 3:06-cv-00322-B   Document 121-3   Filed 03/30/07    Page 22 of 22   PageID 2275
Dimitry TELAMOUR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3871

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.