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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6354 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6354

   To direct the Secretary of State to submit a report on the United 
         Nations Human Rights Council, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2022

 Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Harris, 
    Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey) introduced the 
                             following bill

                            January 10, 2022

              Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of State to submit a report on the United 
         Nations Human Rights Council, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fix the United Nations Human Rights 
Council Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on United States 
policy towards China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and other human rights 
violators relating to their roles as members of the United Nations 
Human Rights Council. Such report shall include--
            (1) a section relating to the United States plan to 
        eliminate Item 7 of the United Nations Human Rights Council 
        Agenda;
            (2) a section relating to the United States areas of 
        concern related to China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and other 
        human rights violators who are members of the United Nations 
        Human Rights Council; and
            (3) a section relating to the United States plan to remove 
        China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and other human rights 
        violators from the United Nations Human Rights Council.
    (b) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall be 
submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
          --------------------------------------------------------

The Board of Directors
Gardner Denver, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-91088, 333-24921, 333-84397, 333-61314 and 333-116108) on Form S-8
and the registration statements (No. 333-109086 and 333-122422) on Form S-3
of Gardner Denver, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) of our reports dated
March 11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the
Company as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the related
financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December
31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004, annual report on
Form 10-K of the Company.

/s/ KPMG LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
March 11, 2005
EXHIBIT
      13.2





YUCHENG
      TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED





Certification




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Peter Li, Chief Financial Officer
      of
      Yucheng Technologies Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to his
      knowledge, that the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
      that
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      June 22, 2007




/s/
                Peter LiName:
                Peter LiTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-145486) pertaining to the registration of836,609 shares of common stock, (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-149022) pertaining to the 2006 EquityIncentive Plan, the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, the2008 Equity Incentive Plan, the Avivo Corporation 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the VisualSciences, Inc. Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the Visual Sciences, Inc.2004 Equity Incentive Award Plan, and the Visual Sciences, Inc. 2006 EmploymentCommencement Equity Incentive Award Plan, (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141352) pertaining to the 2006 EquityIncentive Plan, the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Touch Clarity Limited EnterpriseManagement Incentives Share Option Plan 2002, and the Touch Clarity Limited 2006 U.S. StockPlan, and (4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-135405) pertaining to the 1999 EquityIncentive Plan, the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, and the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,of our reports dated February 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofOmniture, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Omniture,Inc., included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.  /s/ Ernst & Young LLPSalt Lake City, Utah
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stuckey, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,669.

First District, First Division.

June 13, 1966.

Lawrence Rubinstein, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Albert J. Armonda, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE MURPHY.

Not to be published in full.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6401 

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to require recipients 

of assistance to inform minors receiving family planning services through 

such assistance about age of consent law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2022 

Mr. GROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. BUDD, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to require 

recipients of assistance to inform minors receiving family 

planning services through such assistance about age of 

consent law, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Title X Age of Consent 

5 Notification Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6401 IH

1 SEC. 2. INFORMING MINORS RECEIVING FAMILY PLANNING 

2 SERVICES ABOUT AGE OF CONSENT LAW. 

3 Title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 300 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 1009. INFORMING MINORS ABOUT AGE OF CONSENT 

7 LAW. 

8 ‘‘As a condition on receipt of assistance under this 

9 title, an entity shall agree to ensure that each minor who 

10 is receiving family planning services supported in whole 

11 or part through such assistance is informed of the age at 

12 which individuals in the State in which the minor resides 

13 can legally consent to engage in sexual activity.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 76 8 . SHENARD SMI TH v . THE STATE.

A ju ry fo u n d Sh en ard Sm i t h g u i l t y o f m u lt i pl e o f f e n s es , i n cl u d i ng m

u rd er. Fo l l o wi ng t h e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r new tri al
, Sm i t h ap p eal ed t o t h i s Co u rt

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s di ct i o n. U n d er o u r Co n st i t ut io n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v e r

“ [a] l l cas es i n w h i ch a sen ten ce o f d eat h was i m p o s ed o r co u l d b e i m

p o s ed .” See Ga. Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y of d eat h can b e i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m urd er, ju r i s d i ct i o n i s p ro p er i n t he Su p rem e Co u rt

. See OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 - 30 ( b ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 2 9 0 G a. 5 6 3, 5 7 2 (7 2 2 SE2 d 76 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (Hu ns t ei n , J ., co ncu rri ng ); s ee al s o S t a t e v. Th o r n to n , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 24 , 5 24 (1 ) (3 2 2 SE2 d
7 1 1 ) (1 9 84 ) (d i rect in g t hi s Co u rt t o t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n wh ich ei t h er a s en t en ce o f d eat h o r o f l ife i m

p ri s o n m e n t h as b een i m p o s ed u po n co n vi ct i o n o f m u rd er”). Acco rd in g ly
, Sm it h ’ s ap p eal i s h ereb y TRANSF E R RED t o t h e Su prem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 10, 2018

12/10/2018
### Cause 2015-00499J

Texas DEPARTMENT FAMILY PROTECTION SERVICES VS HARRIS COUNTYTEXAS HUONG BUI



## Motionto recusejudge FILED fN 1STCOURTOFAPPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 

## DEC 16 2015 CHRISTOPHER/"VRINE CLERK IRISTOPHER/OfF


### LCAL DIDTRIC CQHBT



## Inthe materofTexas departmentof family protective services VS 

### Huong Bui In the interest ofminor child
THIS MOTION IS BROUGHT ON BYPETITIONER WHO RESPECTFULLYASK FOR THE REMOVAL OF HONORABLE MICHEAL SCHNEIDER FROM CAUSE 2015-00499J DUE TO THE LACK OF UNFAIRNESS IN THE CASE WE RESPECTFULLASK FOR THE

REMOVAL ON THE ABOVE JUDGE AND ASKTHATARE CASE BE MOVED TO A DEFFERNT COURTTO ENSURE THATTHERE IS NO FUTHER CONFLICTS OF 

### INTERESTAND THATTHE PETITIONERS RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED UNDERTHE LAWS OF STATE OF Texas CIVIL PROCEDURESWE FURTHE FEELTHATTHE JUDGE SHOWED FAVORTIZEM TO THE COURT STAFF AND THE P-LAINTIFFS IN THE ABOVE STYLE CAUSE NEGLECTING THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS TO THE RESPONDENTS
FRUADULENTACTIVITY HAS ACURED IN THE PROCEEDING AND HAVE JEOPARDIZE

THE RESPONDENT ABLITY TO DEFEND THEM SELFS IN A FAIR LEAGAL MANNER DESCRIBED BY LAW THOUGH COLOR OF LAW THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A PROPPER DEFENSE AND THE COURT HAS NOT MADE GOOD



### ON IT DUTTIES TO ENFORCE COMPLYANCE OF STATES OFFICIALS IN THIS MATER THEREFORE HAS LED TO WEAK DEFENSE BY RESPONDENTS IT IS THE JUDGES WHO

WE THE PEOPLE IN TRUSTTO UP HOLD THE DUTTIES OF WHAT WE KNOW TO BE THE LAWS RULES CODES AND PROCEEDURES WE STRONGLY HAVE LOST FAITH IN OUR RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS THATARE WRITTEN TO PROTECT US IN SUCH 

### TIMES AS IN THE CAUSE ABOVE WITH DUE RESPECTWE SEEKJUSTICE AND THE PROTECTION UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF Texas

RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR HONORBALE MICHEAL SCHNEIDER TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ANY FUTHER LIDIGATION OF THIS CAUSE

SINCIRLY HUONG T BUI WALTER F SALINAS 12-15-2015HON.MICHEAL SCHNEIDER JR
MOTION GRANTED

DATE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IHERE BY DECLAIR THAT I HAVE PROVIDED A TRUE AND CORECT COPY TO ALL PARTIES WITH INTREST IN THE ABOVE STYLE CAUSE AS PROOF BY THE TEXAS CIVIL CODE OF PROCEDURES TO MY SIGNING BELOW DEUVERDTO PHONE ADDRESS DATE METHOD OF DELIVERY

HUONG BUI 

# ± (A/m DATE
#### Jose MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. HORNING, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6974.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.

Decided Nov. 6, 2002.

Jose Morales, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jose Morales seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommenda*113tion of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Morales has not made the requisite showing. *See Morales v. Homing,*No. CA-01-3711CCB (D.Md. May 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Morales’ motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMIE M. BROWN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 472 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1468 WDA 2018 (Olson, Ott , Colins, JJ.), entered on October 2, 2019, affirming the PCRA Order of the Beaver County Court of Common

Pleas at No. CP

- 04

- CR

- 0000913

- 2001 (McBride, S.J.), entered on September 21, 2018

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT

JUSTICE WECHT

Although I agree that three of the four issues that Petitioner raises do not merit our

review, I would grant allocatur as to his remaining question . In that issue, Petitioner asks:

Whether, in a matter of first impression, the panel erred in finding that the

PCRA [ 1 ] court did not have jurisdiction to consider Brown’s timeliness claims raised within sixty days of discovery following a remand for a hearing on a separate timeliness claim, which is inconsistent with the plain language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2), Commonwe alth v. Lark , 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000),

Commonwealth v. Porter , 35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012), and conflicts with Commonwealth v. Montgomery , 181 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2018) ( en banc )?

Petition for Allowance of Appeal (“PAA”), 472 WAL 2019, at 7 (footnote omitted)

.

In Commonwealth v. Sepulveda , 144 A.3d 1270 (P a. 2016), this Court stated “ that

a PCRA court does not have discretion to treat new claims raised by a PCRA petitioner

1 Post Conviction Relief Act. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 46.[ 472 WAL 2019 ]

- 2

as an amended PCRA petition following remand from this Court unless such amendment

is expr essly authorized in the remand order. ” Id. at 1280 (emphasis added); see also

Commonwealth v. Rivera , 199 A.3d 365, 388

- 89 (Pa. 2018) (applying Sepulveda and

holding that a PCRA petitioner could not amend his petition upon remand). Petitioner

asserts tha t , “ [t] o the extent Se pulveda and Rivera preclude amendments after a remand,

they did not hold that timeliness based claims and their related derivative merits based

issues cannot be considered as a separate petition and consolidated with the remanded

claim.” PAA at 23

- 24 (emphasis added)

.

Petitioner has identified a gap in our PCRA jurisprudence : t his Court has not yet

answered the question of whether a PCRA court can con sider a new PCRA petition while

another p etition is on remand

. This issue is an appropriate one fo r allocatur review

, as it

offers this Court an opportunity to provide guidance for PCRA courts confronting similar

circumstances.
BY-LAWS
 
 of
 
 NINAKHORI
MINERALES S.A.
 
 Summary
in English
      
  
 COMPANY
INCORPORATION SUMMARY
 
 
 NAME:  NINAKHORI
MINERALES ECUADOR S.A.
 
 
 CAPITAL:  US$800.00
divided in 800 common shares.
 
 
 NATIONALITY:  Ecuadorian.
 
 
 DOMICILE:  Quito –
Ecuador.
 
 
 TERM:  99
years.  The shareholders have the right to extend or shorten
it.
 
 
 OBJECT:  Exploration,
development, exploitation and acquisition of mining concessions, as well as
exportation and commerce of minerals.
 
 COMPANY
ORGANIZATION:
 
 General Assembly of
Shareholders
 
 President, and
 
 General Manager.
 
 
 PRESIDENT:  The
president will be elected by the General Assembly of the Company for a time of
period of 5 years.
 
 
 GENERAL
MANAGER:  The General Manager will be elected by the General
Assembly for a time period of 5 years.
#### Mansell-Hunt-Catty & Company, Limited, Respondent, v. James Walter Catty and the J. W. Catty Company, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Ingraham, J., dissenting.
#### Vincenzo Casaregola, as Administrator, etc., of Salvatore Casaregola, Deceased, Appellant, v. The Van Brunt Street and Erie Basin Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Independent BancShares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Dennis M. Clarke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. To my knowledge, 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.

|/S/ Dennis M. Clarke
Dennis M. Clarke, Chief Financial Officer | /S/ Mark A. Imes
Mark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 23, 2007.                                          | Date: March 23, 2007.
#### BRAZIER v. LANCELOT LODGE NO. 38, K. P.

No. 1802.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1938.

Walter Lemann, of Donaldsonville, for appellant.

Geo. R. Blum and S. A'. LeBlanc, Jr., both of Donaldsonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this case by the plaintiff and ap-pellee on the ground that the order of appeal was obtained at a different session of the Twenty-Third judicial district court from that at which the judgment was rendered. It appears from the rules of said court, a copy of which is annexed to the motion to dismiss, that the continuous sessions of said court as prescribed by the Constitution run from the first day of September to the thirtieth day of June of each year. The judgment in this case was rendered on the 29th day of January, 1937, and the order of appeal was obtained in open court on the 17th day of December, 1937. No citation of appeal was asked for by the appellant, nor was any citation of appeal served on the appellee.

As the appeal was obtained at a subsequent session of the court, it was necessary to cite the appellee in order to perfect the appeal. This rule is so well established that it requires no citation of authority.

For these reasons, it is ordered that the motion to dismiss the appeal be, and the same is hereby, sustained, and the appeal is hereby dismissed, at the cost of appellant.

DORE and OTT, JJ., and VICTOR A. SACHSE, Judge ad hoc, sitting.

Le BLANC, J., recused.
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, James Whang, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
      required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
      Form 10-K of STRATS(SM) Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series
      2006-3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
      whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
      state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
      the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
      information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
      covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

      4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
      in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
      in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
      obligations under the servicing agreement; and

      5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
      criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
      reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
      asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
      accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18
      and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
      otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
      noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
      report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.

Dated: March 29, 2007            By:   /s/ James Whang
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      James Whang
                                      Director
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RENALDO LAMAR WISE ,

Appellant , v. Cas e No. 5D 22

- 31 LT Case No. 2009

- CF

- 2802

STAT E OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. _______________________________/ Opinion filed April 26, 2022 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court f or Mar ion County, Lisa D. Herndon, Judge. R enaldo L. Wise, Lak e Butler, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pam ela J. Koller , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Young v. State , 697 So. 2d 75 ( Fla. 1997). WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.