alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-

JOINT ADR STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. C05-01939-JF-PVT

Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.

12 South First Street, Suite 416

San Jose, California 95113-2404

Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100

Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190

Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

KELU NDUNGE MAUNDU

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KELU NDUNGE MAUNDU,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BARNES LAW FIRM, A

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a

California corporation, SHARON LYNN

BARNES, individually and in her official

capacity, and KAY DAVIS, individually and

in her official capacity,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-01939-JF-PVT

JOINT ADR STIPULATION

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties stipulate to participate in the following ADR process:

Court Processes:

9 Arbitration : ENE 9 Mediation 

(To provide additional information regarding timing of session, preferred subject

matter expertise of neutral, of other issues, please attach a separate sheet.)

Private Process:

9 Private ADR (please identify process and provider)

/ / /

/ / /

**E-filed 8/29/05**

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

Case 5:05-cv-01939-JF Document 15 Filed 08/29/05 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

-2-

JOINT ADR STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. C05-01939-JF-PVT

Dated: August 23, 2005 /s/ Fred W. Schwinn

Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

KELU NDUNGE MAUNDU

Dated: August 23, 2005 /s/ Sharon L. Barnes

Sharon L. Barnes, Esq.

Attorney for Defendants

THE BARNES LAW FIRM, APC

SHARON LYNN BARNES

KAY DAVIS

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8/29/05 Jeremy Fogel /s/electronic signature authorized

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

DISTRICT COURT

Case 5:05-cv-01939-JF Document 15 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2
Harvey T. DOREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES ex rel. DONNA M.

McLEAN and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ex rel DONNA M. McLEAN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, THE

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY SERVICES OF SANTA CLARA

COUNTY, KENNETH BORELLI,

LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EPIFANIO (“J.R.”)

REYNA, TANYA BEYERS, DR. DEE

SCHAEFFER, DR. TOMMIJEAN THOMAS,

DR. RICHARD PERILLO and DOES 1-100,

Defendants. /

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Counter-claimant,

 v.

DONNA M. McLEAN and DOES 1-100,

Counter-defendants. /

No. C05-01962 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

TOMMIJEAN THOMAS’ MOTION TO

SET ASIDE DEFAULT

On August 15, 2006, default was entered against defendant Dr. Tommijean Thomas. 

She now moves to have that default set aside, and relator Donna McLean confirms that there is

no opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as unopposed. Dr.

*E-FILED ON 9/7/06*

Case 5:05-cv-01962-HRL Document 58 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Thomas’ proposed answer, which was submitted with the instant motion, shall be deemed filed

as of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

September 7, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-01962-HRL Document 58 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

5:05-cv-1962 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Melissa R. Kiniyalocts melissa.kiniyalocts@cco.co.scl.ca.us 

Douglas A Linde dal@lindelaw.net, ela@lindelaw.net 

Sara McLean sara.mclean@usdoj.gov 

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov; claire.muller@usdoj.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Courtesy copy will be mailed to:

O. Brandt Caudill, Jr.

Callahan, McCune & Willis, APLC

111 Fashion Lane

Tustin, CA 92780-3397

Julia Clayton

Deputy Attorney General

California Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:05-cv-01962-HRL Document 58 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-392]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 2069-000]


Arizona Public Service Co., Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

January 3, 1995.
    On December 18, 1992, Arizona Public Service Company, licensee for 
the Irving and Childs Project No. 2069, filed an application for a new 
or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the 
Commission's regulations thereunder. Project No. 2069 is located on 
Fossil Creek and the Verde River in Yavapai and Gila Counties, Arizona.
    The license for Project No. 2069 was issued for a period ending 
December 31, 1994. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in Section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of Section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on Section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2069 is issued to 
Arizona Public Service Company for a period effective January 1, 1995, 
through December 31, 1995, or until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. 
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place 
on or before December 31, 1995, notice is hereby given that, pursuant 
to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA 
is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Arizona Public Service Company is authorized to 
continue operation of the Irving and Childs Project No. 2069 until such 
time as the Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.
Louis D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-392 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Roberto J. RAMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-222

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Asia Network, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Michael Lin, Chief Executive 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.

/s/Michael Lin



Michael Lin, Chief Executive Officer

March 7, 2006
Exhibit
4.26




[Translation
of Chinese Original]




Power
of Attorney




Principal:
Shizhou Shen




Address:
No. 1902, F15, Huaqing Jiayuan, Haidian District, Beijing




Attorney-in-Fact:
Beijing Super TV Co., Ltd.




Registered
Address: Room 406, Floor, Building B, 5-2, Jing-Meng Hi-Tech Mansion, Shangdi
East Road, Haidian District, Beijing




Scope of
Authorization:




Shizhou
Shen, the Principal, hereby irrecoverably authorizes Beijing Super TV Co., Ltd.
(or its designated third party) as his Attorney-in-Fact to exercise within the
term of this Power of Attorney the following rights:




Beijing
Super TV Co., Ltd. (or its designated third party) is authorized as the
Attorney-in-Fact of Shizhou Shen to exercise all voting rights enjoyed by the
latter in accordance with applicable laws and the Articles of Association in the
general meeting of shareholders of Beijing Novel-Super Digital TV Technology
Co., Ltd. (“DTV Company”), including but not limited to sale or transfer all or
any shares held by Shizhou Shen in DTV Company, and nomination and appointment
of directors of the DTV Company as the authorized Attorney-in-Fact of Shizhou
Shen in the general meeting of shareholders of DTV Company.




Any legal
liability arising from all and any authorized activity carried out by the
Attorney-in-Fact within the scope of authorization shall be assumed by Shizhou
Shen.




The term
of this Power of Attorney is 10 years starting from the date this Power of
Attorney is executed, unless the Loan Agreement (Attachment 1) executed by and
between Beijing Super TV Co., Ltd and Shizhou Shen, and its supplementary
agreements thereto are terminated for whatsoever reason. If the Loan Agreement
(Attachment 1) is extended for a certain period, this Power of Attorney shall be
automatically extended for the same period. All and any issues in connection
with this Power of Attorney shall be governed by Chinese laws. This Power of
Attorney is written in Chinese.




Principal:
/s/ Shizhou Shen




November
24, 2008









Attachment
1:  Loan Agreement (omitted)
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 7/27/17 JOINT 

LETTERS RE: PLAINTIFF 

STRICKLAND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 60 & 61

On July 27, 2017, the parties filed separate joint letters concerning the sufficiency of 

Defendant Best Buy’s responses to Plaintiff Jonathan Strickland’s first set of interrogatories (Dkt. 

No. 60) and his first set of requests for production of documents (Dkt. No. 61).

Currently, pending before the district court is a motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims 

on res judicata grounds, given that he previously sued Best Buy in state court and lost. (Dkt. No. 

61 at 5.) Furthermore, the undersigned ordered Best Buy to supplement its responses to Plaintiff 

Harris’s special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, which should provide 

Plaintiffs with sufficient information at this point in the pre-class certification stage. (See Dkt. No. 

72.)

Accordingly, in an effort to conserve resources, the Court TERMINATES the Strickland 

joint letters, and directs the parties to refile the dispute should the case survive the pending 

motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00446-HSG Document 73 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      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 Tiger Renewable Energy Ltd. on Form
      10-Q
      for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michel St-Pierre, Principal
      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, to my
      knowledge that:





(1) 
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
      September 18, 2008






By:
            /s/
                Michel St-PierreName:   
                Michel St-PierreTitle:     
                Principal Financial Officer
#### Manuel Mangabat DEGUZMAN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-73953.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2004.

Decided April 28, 2004.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Patricia A. Smith, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

DeGuzman appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Because deportation proceedings com*521meneed before April 1, 1997, and the BIA issued its final deportation order after October 30, 1996, we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision pursuant to the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. *See*IIRIRA § 309(C)(1), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), as amended by Pub.L. No. 104-302,110 Stat. 3656 (Oct. 11, 1996).

DeGuzman claims on appeal that, in violation of his due process rights, the Office of the Immigration Judge did not provide him with proper notice of his deportation hearing because the notice of hearing was not sent to his attorney. The Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) that was mailed to DeGuzman at his last known address contained the same language as the OSC in *Dobrota v. INS,*311 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.2002), where we held that an alien reasonably relied on the mixed message contained in the OSC to conclude that future notices would be sent to his attorney. Because this case is indistinguishable from *Dobrota,*the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. *Id.*at 1211-12.

PETITION GRANTED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1  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 on Form 10-Q of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brenda G. Gujral, president of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 12, 2009By:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order issued May 1 , 201 3 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 2

- 0 0 985

- CR

________________________________________

TRACY LYNN SIMS, JR. , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the January 25 , 2012 motion of

Kathleen A. Walsh for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to remove Kathleen A. Walsh as counsel of record for appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to

Tracy Lynn Sims, Jr., TDCJ No. 1798759, Bradshaw State Jail, P.O. Box 90 00, Henderson,

Texas, 75653

.

/David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
CITY OF DUNEDIN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, Petitioner, v. ARL & IL REVOCABLE TRUST, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-4401

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Optionable, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brad P. O’Sullivan , Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











May 12, 2011/s/ Brad P. O’SullivanChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8116

DION ORLANDO TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. MICHAEL LANG, in individual and official capacity,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

MAJOR EICHELBERGER; WARDEN LEVERN COHEN; LT. S. LOWERY; M. 

E. MONTOUTH, Grievance Coordinator, all in individual and 

official capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (0:10-cv-02327-HMH)

Submitted: May 24, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dion Orlando Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. Bendle, 

William T. Young, III, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Dion Orlando Taylor, a South Carolina state prisoner, 

appeals from a jury verdict in favor of prison guard Michael 

Lang on Taylor’s claim that Lang subjected him to an excessive 

use of force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Taylor also 

moves for the preparation of a transcript at the government’s 

expense. We deny the motion and affirm.

Considering Taylor’s challenge to several of the 

district court’s evidentiary rulings, we find that Taylor has 

not plausibly suggested an abuse of discretion. United States 

v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 351 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. 

Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 309 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Further, assuming that the district court dismissed 

Taylor’s official-capacity claim against Lang, we find that such 

a disposition was clearly appropriate because Taylor failed to 

allege or otherwise establish facts suggesting his entitlement 

to injunctive relief. Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka, 669 

F.3d 194, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2012); Revene v. Charles Cnty.

Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1989).

Finally, there is no support in the record for 

Taylor’s speculation that the district court failed to record 

the pre-trial evidentiary hearing. See Wyatt v. United States, 

591 F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 1979) (general presumption of 

regularity attends all judicial acts). Even assuming such an 
4

omission occurred, Taylor has not established resulting 

prejudice sufficient to warrant a new trial. United States v. 

Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 696 (4th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, we conclude that Taylor has not made the 

showing necessary to justify the preparation of a transcript at 

government expense, deny his motion for such, and affirm the 

jury’s verdict. 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. 

AFFIRMED
Jermaine BRADFORD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1865

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Laura Ann CANCIO n/k/a Laura Ann Davis, Appellant, v. Juan Manuel CANCIO, Appellee.

No. 3D18-345

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Law Offices of Robin Bresky, and Robin Bresky and Jeremy Dicker (Boca Raton), for appellant.

Juan Manuel Cancio, in proper person.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Finding the issues raised in the current appeal virtually identical to the issues raised by appellant in her prior appeal which was affirmed, *Cancio v. Cancio*, Case No. 17-2774, 2018 WL 2230038 (Fla. 3d DCA May 16, 2018), we affirm here as well.

Affirmed.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000647

16-DEC-2016

10:35 AM
Bernard BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1343

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.