alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0354n.06

Filed: May 24, 2007

NO. 06-6089

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

LARRY THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

ON APPEAL FROM THE

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE

DACCO INCORPORATED, DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________/

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Larry Thompson appeals from the order of the district

court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee DACCO, Inc., and denying

Thompson’s motion for summary judgment in this action alleging a racially hostile work

environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. On appeal,

Thompson argues that the district court erred in granting DACCO’s motions in limine, and in

granting summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding DACCO’s

liability for co-worker harassment. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, and

having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that this matter is AFFIRMED for the reasons

stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion entered on July 19, 2006.
Andre Q. SLATON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-147733 and333-141169) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-56360, 333-130496 and 333-148185) of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 13, 2009 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 13, 2009
Joseph Edward HUDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2512

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 8, 2020

a0831 

# Order

Clerk September 8, 2020

160412(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160412

COA: 350851

Wayne CC: 94

- 005655

- FC

DEANGELO TAJUAN JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of th is Court’s March 27,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Andre FLETCHER and Sharon Dammar-Fletcher, Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1022

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: RUDOLPH AUTOMOTIVE, LLC 

D/B/A RUDOLPH MAZDA AND 

RUDOLPH CHEVROLET, LLC,

 

 Relators.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00149-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

On September 19, 2018, this Court issued an order for the court reporter to file a 

supplemental mandamus record containing the record of the trial no later than November 19, 2018. 

On November 19, 2018, the court reporter filed a written request for an extension of time to file 

the supplemental mandamus record. On January 11, 2019, the court reporter filed a second written 

request for an extension of time to file the supplemental mandamus record. The extension request

is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the supplemental mandamus record is due to be

filed no later than March 19, 2019. Relators’ amended mandamus petition is due to be filed thirty 

days after the supplemental mandamus record is filed. The response of the real party in interest is 

due to be filed thirty days after Relators’ amended petition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14hday of January, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Dequan Rahkelle CHARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3690

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
George Alexander HILL, Sr., DOC #106983, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

George Alexander Hill, Sr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MICHAEL J. QUILLING, as Receiver 0 

for Sardaukar Holdings, IBC and 9 

Bradley C. Stark 0 

9 

Plaintiff, 0 

9 

VS. 9 

9 

3-D MARKETING, LLC 0 

9 

Defendant. 9 

NO. 3-06-CV-0293-L 

SHOW CAUSE ORDER 

Michael J. Quilling, as Receiver for Sardaukar Holdings, IBC and related entities, has filed 

an amended motion for a show cause order requiring Dean A. Steeves, principal agent of 3-D 

Marketing, LLC, to appear in court and explain why he and his company should not be held in civil 

contempt for violating the final judgment entered in this case on March 8, 2007.' The judgment 

provides, in pertinent part: 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 

judgment is entered in favor of Michael J. Quilling as Receiver for 

Sardaukar Holdings, IBC andBradley C. Stark against Defendant 3-D 

Marketing, LLC in the amount of $150,000; that a constructive trust 

is hereby imposed on the $1 50,000 in funds which the court found 

were voidable transfers under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer 

Act, Tex. Bus. & Cornm. Code Ann. 5 24.005 (Vernon 2002); that 3- 

D Marketing, LLC is to disgorge these funds to the Receiver within 

thirty (30) days of the entry of this Judgment. . . 

Jmt., 3/8/07 at 1 (emphasis added). More than 30 days has passed since the disgorgement order was 

entered and 3-D Marketing, LLC has failed to pay the $150,000 to the Receiver. 

' The Receiver's first motion for a show cause order was denied without prejudice because it failed to explain how 

Steeves, who is not a party to this case, can be held in civil contempt and incarcerated as the principal agent of 3-D 

Marketing, LLC. See Order, 511 1/07. The amended motion filed by the Receiver corrects thls deficiency. 

Case 3:06-cv-00293-L -BD Document 51 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 379
A show cause hearing is set for Julv 13,2007 at 9:00 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeff 

Kaplan, 1 100 Commerce Street, 16th Floor, Dallas, Texas. Dean A. Steeves, as principal agent of 

3-D Marketing, LLC, is ordered to attend this hearing in person, then and there to show cause why 

he and his company should not be held in civil contempt for violating the disgorgement order 

contained in the final judgment entered on March 8, 2007. A written response to the motion is 

neither required nor desired. Steeves will be given an opportunity to present any evidence and 

argument at the show cause hearing. 

The district clerk shall serve a copy of this show cause order on counsel for 3-D Marketing, 

LLC. In addition, the Receiver is directed to attempt personal service of this show cause order on 

Dean A. Steeves, as principal agent of 3-D Marketing, LLC. Proof of service must be filed with the 

district clerk before any relief is granted. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 6,2007. 

TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00293-L -BD Document 51 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 380
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

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Respondent

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 17-00040-BLF

[Proposed] AMENDED ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT 

**AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT**

Good cause having been shown by the United States upon its Application For Entry of Order To 

Show Cause Re: Contempt and Declaration of Thomas Moore and Certificate of Service filed on June 2, 

2017, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondent Jose Hernandez appear in person before this Court on January 11,

2018, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 3, 5th Floor, United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San 

Jose, California, and then and there show cause, if he has any, why he should not be held in contempt for 

his failure to comply with the Order Requiring Respondent to Appear Before Revenue Officer to Give 

Testimony and Provide Items Described in Summonses filed April 12, 2017; and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt be served upon said 

respondent in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at least thirty-five (35) 

days before the return date of this Order above specified; and it is further

 
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

30

ORDERED that on or before December 21, 2017, the respondent may file and serve a written 

response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt, supported by appropriate affidavit(s) or 

declaration(s) in conformance with 28 U.S.C. Subsection 1746, as well as any motions he desires to 

make; that on or before December 28, 2017, the petitioner may file and serve a written reply to such 

response, if any; that all motions and issues raised by the pleadings will be considered on the return date 

of this Order, and only those issues raised by motion or brought into controversy by the responsive 

pleadings and supported by affidavit(s) or declaration(s) will be considered at the return of this Order.

ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2017, at San Jose, California.

_______________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge
Richard WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and G. Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law"); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence"); *Heath v. State*, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla. 1994) (noting that a "trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence and such determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion"); *Knight v. State*, 15 So.3d 936, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (observing that where reasonable trial judges might well disagree on whether certain evidence should have been admitted or excluded at trial, no abuse of discretion has been shown).
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. In the matter of A.B.

2170484

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 2018

Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ALI ODEH and OSAMA ODEH, §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-0225-K

§ ECF

RICHARD ROPER, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the District Court’s Standing Order of Reference (doc. 43), this case has been

referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. Before this Court is

defendant Sue Engledow’s motion to renew the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss (as it pertains

to her) and to renew her individual motion to dismiss (doc. 115). On August 15, 2006, this Court

entered findings recommending that the District Court grant the federal defendants’ motion to

dismiss, including their individual motions to dismiss (doc. 93). Defendant Sue Engledow’s name

was inadvertently omitted from those findings. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the August 15,

2006 findings (doc. 93), the plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Sue Engledow should be dismissed

with prejudice. This Court recommends that the District Court grant defendant Sue Engledow’s

motion to renew the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss (as it pertains to her) and to renew her

individual motion to dismiss (doc. 115), along with the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss as it

pertains to defendant Sue Engledow (doc. 87), and Sue Engledow’s individual motion to dismiss

(doc. 80).

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00225-N Document 123 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 742
2

SO RECOMMENDED. October 6, 2006.

___________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00225-N Document 123 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 743
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these conclusions and

recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written

objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically

identify those conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District

Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such

written objections to these proposed conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de

novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed conclusions and recommendation

within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of

plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc).

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00225-N Document 123 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 744
STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell HOLMES

No. 2019-KP-0290

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The district court and lower appellate court's rulings regarding the state's procedural objection are vacated because materials included in the application for post-conviction relief show that the state did not withhold the initial incident report from Mr. Holmes or his trial counsel. Therefore, the application was not timely filed in the district court, and Mr. Holmes fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Mr. Holmes has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. His claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, he has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny.

HUGHES, J., would deny.

GENOVESE, J., would deny.
Laquareious Jahmichael GRANDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1602

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 16, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Jayson M. ERNST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nicole Joanne Martingano, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, EDWARDS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and amendments thereto:

      Form S-8 No. 33-21505         Employee Stock Purchase Plan
      Form S-8 No. 333-41671        Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation
                                    Plan
      Form S-8 No. 333-41669        1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan
      Form S-8 No. 333-41673        Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
      Form S-8 No. 333-42131        Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan

of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our
report dated February 6, 1998, except for Note 5, paragraph 6, as to which the
date is March 4, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 26, 1998
MICHAEL AND CATHERINE
HENRY

,
Appellant s ,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2479

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. William A. Wilkes , Judge

.
Thomas R. Pycraft, Jr., Michael Joseph Pelkowski, and John J

. Spence, St. Augustine , for Appellant s

.

No a ppearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the brief and record in this case without the benefit of an answer brief 1 but find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1 No answer brief or motion was filed on behalf of Appellee even though the Clerk contacted the law firms that represented Appellee below and extended the time to file an answer.ROBERTS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.

2
Case 3:17-cv-00058-EMC Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-00058-EMC Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-00058-EMC Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-00058-EMC Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4
EX PARTE T.N-H.

(In re: The matter of J.M., a minor child)

2170297

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 9, 2018

Mand. pet. denied.
Charles H. WILLIAMS, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3786

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 2, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:06-cr-00013 Document 38 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 1 of 1
 

 Case 3:06-cr-00013-N Document 38 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 76
EX PARTE Arlis WILSON

1160743 (CR-15-0746)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
V.I. Technologies, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of V.I. Technologies, Inc. as of
January 1, 2000 and January 2, 1999 and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 1, 2000. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of V.I. Technologies, Inc. as of
January 1, 2000 and January 2, 1999, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 1, 2000,
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


                                                   /s/ KPMG LLP
Melville, New York
January 17, 2000
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 15 PageID 276
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 15 PageID 277
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 15 PageID 278
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 15 PageID 279
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 15 PageID 280
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 6 of 15 PageID 281
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 7 of 15 PageID 282
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 8 of 15 PageID 283
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 9 of 15 PageID 284
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 10 of 15 PageID 285
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 11 of 15 PageID 286
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 12 of 15 PageID 287
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 13 of 15 PageID 288
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 14 of 15 PageID 289
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 15 of 15 PageID 290
Cortez Devonte JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0853

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Lance GRANDISON

NO. 2018-K-1992

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

Denied.