(2008) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WESTLY BRIAN CANI Case No. 5:04-cr-37-Oc-22GRJ. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division. February 14, 2008. MEMORANDUM RE-SENTENCING OPINION I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [1] On October 8, 1998, the Defendant, Westly Brian Cani ("Cani"), was sentenced to a term of 96 months imprisonment for the assault of a United States Postal Service employee with intent to steal property of the United States, namely stamps. [2] After previously being confined at th..

740 So. 2d 1246 (1999) PERSHING INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Vista Memorial Gardens, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The ESTATE OF Victoria SANZ, etc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 98-1414. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. September 1, 1999. *1247 Lapidus and Frankel and Robert Frankel, Miami, for appellant. Stabinski and Funt; Bambi G. Blum, Miami, for appellee. Before NESBITT, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED PER CURIAM. On Pershing Industries, Inc. d/b/a Vis..

490 So. 2d 1035 (1986) Barbara W. EVANS, Now Barbara W. Nelson, Appellant, v. Douglas Edward EVANS, Appellee. No. BD-241. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. June 27, 1986. Michael A. Durant of Lewis, Paul, Isaac & Castillo, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant. Lyman T. Fletcher of Fletcher & Fletcher, Jacksonville, for appellee. MILLS, Judge. Barbara Nelson brings this appeal from an order modifying child custody. She asserts, and we agree, that the trial court erred in modifying ..

975 So. 2d 1217 (2008) MATRIX EMPLOYEE LEASING and FCIC/First Commercial Claim Services, Appellants, v. Leopoldo HERNANDEZ, Appellee. No. 1D07-1455. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. March 10, 2008. Kristin J. Longberry of Alvarez, Sambol, Winthrop & Madson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. Yolanda Hewling, Port St. Lucie; and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellee. WOLF, J. The employer/carrier (E/C) raises two issues on appeal. We affirm as to both, and choose to discuss one: Whet..

658 So. 2d 1049 (1995) David L. GORMAN, Appellant, v. George T. KELLY, IV., Appellee. No. 93-0479. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. June 9, 1995. Rehearing Denied August 22, 1995. *1050 David L. Gorman and Peter S. Van Keuren of David L. Gorman, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant. Kenneth A. Marra of Nason, Gildan, Yeager, Gerson & White, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee. DELL, Chief Judge. This appeal arises out of appellant David L. Gorman's suit for breach of contrac..

776 So. 2d 937 (2000) METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. CBM INDUSTRIES OF MINNESOTA, INC., etc., Appellee. No. 3D99-1954. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. September 20, 2000. Rehearing Denied February 21, 2001. Merritt, & Sikes and William C. Merritt, Miami; Hicks & Anderson and Martin E. Leach, Miami, for appellant. Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson and John P. Joy and Kenneth L. Valentini, Miami, for appellee. Before COP..

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Management Services (“DMS"), acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. MSFM-13002020 (the "ITB") to Intervenor Future Computer Systems, LLC ("FCS").Petitioner failed to prove that agency's interpretation of bid specification regarding experience in installing, programming and maintaining fire alarm control panels was contrary to agency's governing statutes, rules or policies.

Whether the Petitioners have shown any vested rights pursuant to Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended under Clay County Ordinances 92-22, 92-29, and 93-26, for the issuance of a building permit for each of Petitioners' lots, as amended in Petitioners' application, depicted on surveyed plat recorded with the county clerk on December 31, 1991.Equit relief on development plan density requirements denied. Recommended variance to divide parcel on pre-plan roads with lot sizes close to plan requirements.

Whether or not on or about November 8, 1977, a licensing worker of the Petitioner visited and encountered several violations of the staff ratios in the facility of the Respondents, (among these, five infants completely unsupervised in one room, and eighteen children in two connecting rooms without supervision), in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on January 24, 1978, the visit by an employee of the Petitioner to the facility of the Respondents disclosed that the infant area was short one staff member, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 8, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility and found seventeen infants, eleven of whom were under one year of age, supervised by only one staff worker, in violation of Rule 10C- 10.22-(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 8, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility and discovered one child alone in a room in the facility completely unsupervised, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner in a visit to the Respondents' facility found two children in a room completely unsupervised, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Cede. Whether or not on March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visiting the licensed facility of the Respondents found eleven infants in one room supervised by one staff person, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner while visiting the Respondents' facility discovered on the outside part of the premises, four infants with a group of about fifteen older children being supervised by only two staff persons of the Respondents, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not subsequent to March 15, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility on three separate occasions and found less than the minimum required staff on duty in violation of Rule 10C- 10.22(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on April 5, 1978, an employee of the Petitioner visited the Respondents' facility and found nine infants completely unattended in the infant area of Respondents' licensed premises, in violation of Rule 10C-10.22 (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on that same date, an employee of of the Petitioner visited the facility of the Respondents and discovered that a mattress and springs of one of the cribs had become dislodged in one corner, so that the corner of the mattress and springs had fallen to the floor causing one of the nine infants that was in the crib to be trapped between the mattress and the bottom of the crib.Respondents repeatedly understaffed in violation of law. Revoke license, but stay revocation for satisfactory completion of a two-year probation.