alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 17, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1779

Lower Tribunal No. 12-15166 SP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Millennium Radiology, LLC, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie 

Moore, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks 

& Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”) appeals 

the final judgment entered by the trial court after entry of summary judgment 

on the reasonableness of a diagnostic test based on the doctrine of collateral 

estoppel. We reverse and remand consistent with our recent decision in 

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 337 So. 3d 

834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Millennium's ‘identity’ is not the same in each of 

these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its 

assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, 

therefore, is not satisfied.”).

In light of our decision, we decline to address United Auto’s second 

issue on appeal regarding accord and satisfaction since the summary 

judgment order entered thereon now becomes a non-final, non-appealable 

order.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RAFAEL BURGOS-VAZQUEZ and JUAN GOMEZ,

Appellants,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association, as successor to

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-2210

[March 23, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lynn Rosenthal, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE08034579 

(11).

Rafael Burgos-Vazquez and Juan Gomez, Hollywood, pro se.

W. Aaron Daniel and Elliot B. Kula of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Juan Gomez, the sole defendant in the underlying

foreclosure case, and Rafael Burgos-Vazquez, who has joined in the appeal 

despite not having been a party to the underlying action, claim to challenge 

an order rendered on May 7, 2015, denying Mr. Gomez’s motion to cancel 

the foreclosure sale. This order itself is non-final and non-appealable. 

Moreover, the initial brief on appeal raises issues solely addressed to the 

final judgment of foreclosure entered on January 5, 2009. This appeal is 

untimely from the final judgment. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). We therefore 

dismiss this appeal.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000737210
<NAME> LNB BANCORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,547
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,034
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     77,258
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          47,865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            45,010
<LOANS>                                        427,845
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (4,790)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 600,265
<DEPOSITS>                                     501,970
<SHORT-TERM>                                    15,320
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,726
<LONG-TERM>                                     24,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,227
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 600,265
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,027
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,873
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    39
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,939
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,572
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,384
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,555
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,988
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,980
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,980
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.80
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,157
<LOANS-PAST>                                       781
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,461
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,667
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      237
<RECOVERIES>                                        60
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,790
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,435
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,355


</TABLE>
#### Anna V. Faust, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard M. Roop, Deceased, Respondent, v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., Appellant.

Same decision and like cause of action as in companion case of *Faust, as Administratrix of the Estate of Eileen V. Roop,*V. *Central Greyhound Lines, Ine. {ante,*p. 1055, decided herewith). Present — Taylor, P. J., McCum, Love, Vaughan and Kim-ball, JJ.
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

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 997.21

 996.46

 995.79

 995.05

 994.23

 993.43

 992.73

 992.07

 991.29

 990.67

 990.09

 989.50

 988.93

 988.52

 988.08

 987.47

 986.84

 986.25

 985.71

 985.14

 984.62

 984.16

 983.66

 983.30

 982.91

 982.33

 981.74

 981.20

 980.62

 980.14

 979.71

 2,768.3

 2,752.2

 2,737.9

 2,722.2

 2,704.9

 2,688.0

 2,673.4

 2,659.6

 2,643.3

 2,630.5

 2,618.5

 2,606.3

 2,594.6

 2,586.2

 2,577.2

 2,564.9

 2,552.1

 2,540.1

 2,529.2

 2,517.7

 2,507.3

 2,498.1

 2,488.2

 2,481.0

 2,473.3

 2,461.8

 2,450.1

 2,439.5

 2,428.1

 2,418.8

 2,410.4

STORAGE

-16.8

-16.0

-14.3

-15.7

-17.3

-16.8

-14.7

-13.8

-16.2

-12.9

-12.0

-12.1

-11.7

-8.4

-9.0

-12.4

-12.8

-12.0

-10.9

-11.5

-10.4

-9.2

-10.0

-7.2

-7.7

-11.5

-11.6

-10.6

-11.4

-9.4

-8.4

CHANGE

 3,175

 3,535

 3,413

 3,693

 2,276

 2,315

 3,488

 3,597

 2,048

 3,645

 3,722

 3,188

 3,045

 4,049

 3,559

 3,367

 3,086

 3,776

 3,530

 3,366

 2,900

 2,623

 3,183

 3,334

 3,550

 3,333

 3,431

 3,108

 2,959

 3,196

 2,821

INFLOW

 11,389

 11,399

 10,448

 11,459

 10,754

 10,639

 10,687

 10,332

 9,995

 9,887

 9,550

 9,086

 8,722

 8,059

 7,904

 9,409

 9,330

 9,644

 8,814

 8,922

 7,940

 7,062

 8,084

 6,815

 7,287

 8,983

 9,115

 8,273

 8,500

 7,729

 6,815

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 233

 226

 169

 162

 261

 167

 203

 221

 232

 237

 218

 224

 229

 217

 192

 191

 191

 178

 219

 224

 212

 200

 123

 129

 169

 134

 185

 191

 190

 201

 235

C.F.S.

 .37

 .36

 .27

 .26

 .42

 .27

 .33

 .36

 .38

 .39

 .36

 .37

 .38

 .36

 .32

 .32

 .32

 .30

 .37

 .38

 .36

 .34

 .21

 .22

 .29

 .23

 .32

 .33

 .33

 .35

 .41

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2004 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 30, 2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS -374.7 100,311 283,032 0 0 6,163 10.28 .00

ACRE-FEET -374,700 198,967 561,394 0 0 12,224

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 561,394

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 561,394

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2004 .00

 2,785.0

Table 3
§ 670.525 What residential support services must Job Corps center operators provide? Job Corps center operators must provide the following services according to procedures issued by the Secretary: ( a ) A quality living and learning environment that supports the overall training program and includes a safe, secure, clean and attractive physical and social environment, seven days a week, 24 hours a day;
( b ) An ongoing, structured counseling program for students;
( c ) Food service, which includes provision of nutritious meals for students;
( d ) Medical services, through provision or coordination of a wellness program which includes access to basic medical, dental and mental health services, as described in the Policy and Requirements Handbook, for all students from the date of enrollment until separation from the Job Corps program;
( e ) A recreation/avocational program;
( f ) A student leadership program and an elected student government; and
( g ) A student welfare association for the benefit of all students that is funded by non-appropriated funds which come from sources such as snack bars, vending machines, disciplinary fines, and donations, and is run by an elected student government, with the help of a staff advisor.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41291 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELISSA CHRISTINE LORK, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-44-ALL-RHC

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Melissa Christine Lork pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine but reserved the right appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized from her vehicle during a traffic stop. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but its ultimate conclusion as to theNo. 04-41291 -2- constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed de novo. United States v. Orozco , 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir. 1999). Lork argues that the district court erred in finding that the police officer acted reasonably in stopping her because the evidence did not establish that she was speeding. However, the relevant inquiry is whether the police officer had probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred. Whren v. United
States , 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996). Based on the testimony and the police officer’s training and experience, we conclude that he did have probable cause to stop Lork for speeding. Lork also argues that the police officer impermissibly extended her detention. However, a detectable odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle provides probable cause for the search of a vehicle. See United States v. Reed , 882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1989). Because the police officer testified that he detected this odor immediately upon approaching Lork’s vehicle, any questions regarding the length of detention or consent to the search are irrelevant. Lork also argues that the police officer had no training in the smell of marijuana. Based on the police officer’s extensive training and experience in narcotics, as well as his testimony that he was familiar with the odor of marijuana, we conclude that his detection of this odor provided probable cause for the search of the vehicle.No. 04-41291 -3- Although Lork submitted a F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(j) letter referencing the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), she did not argue any sentencing error in her briefs, nor do we see any effect of Booker on her
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
### §9009. Office of Children's Issues

#### (a) Director requirements

The Secretary of State shall fill the position of Director of the Office of Children's Issues of the Department of State (in this section referred to as the "Office") with an individual of senior rank who can ensure long-term continuity in the management and policy matters of the Office and has a strong background in consular affairs.

#### (b) Case officer staffing

Effective April 1, 2000, there shall be assigned to the Office of Children's Issues of the Department of State a sufficient number of case officers to ensure that the average caseload for each officer does not exceed 75.

#### (c) Embassy contact

The Secretary of State shall designate in each United States diplomatic mission an employee who shall serve as the point of contact for matters relating to international abductions of children by parents. The Director of the Office shall regularly inform the designated employee of children of United States citizens abducted by parents to that country.

#### (d) Reports to parents

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), beginning 6 months after November 29, 1999, and at least once every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to each parent who has requested assistance regarding an abducted child overseas. Each such report shall include information on the current status of the abducted child's case and the efforts by the Department of State to resolve the case.

#### (2) Exception

The requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case of an abducted child if—

(A) the case has been closed and the Secretary of State has reported the reason the case was closed to the parent who requested assistance; or

(B) the parent seeking assistance requests that such reports not be provided.

(Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(7) [div. A, title II, §201], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–419).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, and not as part of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act which comprises this chapter.

Section was formerly classified to section 11608a of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
§ 680.970 How is the level of needs-related payments determined? ( a ) The payment level for adults must be established by the Local WDB. For statewide projects, the payment level for adults must be established by the State WDB.
( b ) For dislocated workers, payments must not exceed the greater of either of the following levels: ( 1 ) The applicable weekly level of the unemployment compensation benefit, for participants who were eligible for unemployment compensation as a result of the qualifying dislocation; or
( 2 ) The poverty level for an equivalent period, for participants who did not qualify for unemployment compensation as a result of the qualifying layoff. The weekly payment level must be adjusted to reflect changes in total family income, as determined by Local WDB policies.
§ 653.100 Purpose and scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart sets forth the principal regulations of the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service (ES) concerning the provision of services for MSFWs consistent with the requirement that all services of the workforce development system be available to all job seekers in an equitable and nondiscriminatory fashion. This includes ensuring MSFWs have access to these services in a way that meets their unique needs. MSFWs must receive services on a basis which is qualitatively equivalent and quantitatively proportionate to services provided to non-MSFWs.
( b ) This subpart contains requirements that State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) establish a system to monitor their own compliance with ES regulations governing services to MSFWs.
( c ) Established under this subpart are special services to ensure MSFWs receive the full range of career services as defined in WIOA sec. 134(c)(2).
[81 FR 56341, Aug. 19, 2016, as amended at 88 FR 82726, Nov. 24, 2023]
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

29

DAY ELEV

 514.00

 514.20

 514.65

 515.06

 515.67

 516.01

 516.62

 517.30

 517.61

 517.90

 518.47

 518.49

 518.74

 519.03

 519.62

 519.97

 520.37

 520.70

 521.20

 521.98

 522.58

 523.69

 524.17

 525.45

 526.87

 527.85

 528.75

 529.80

 531.09

 1,671,182

 1,673,559

 1,678,913

 1,683,795

 1,691,068

 1,695,127

 1,702,417

 1,710,556

 1,714,271

 1,717,748

 1,724,591

 1,724,831

 1,727,836

 1,731,323

 1,738,425

 1,742,643

 1,747,468

 1,751,452

 1,757,494

 1,766,934

 1,774,207

 1,787,690

 1,793,532

 1,809,141

 1,826,513

 1,838,535

 1,849,600

 1,862,538

 1,878,476

STORAGE

+6,769

+2,377

+5,354

+4,882

+7,273

+4,059

+7,290

+8,139

+3,715

+3,477

+6,843

+240

+3,005

+3,487

+7,102

+4,218

+4,825

+3,984

+6,042

+9,440

+7,273

+13,483

+5,842

+15,609

+17,372

+12,022

+11,065

+12,938

+15,938

CHANGE

3,845

2,061

3,073

2,748

4,108

2,230

4,220

4,425

1,979

2,680

3,820

2,124

1,889

2,024

3,914

2,236

2,267

2,118

3,348

5,084

3,853

7,247

3,196

8,701

8,634

6,492

5,770

6,718

9,135

PUMPING

 0

 1,000

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 584

 0

 1,844

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 208

 208

 208

 208

 209

 164

 178

 181

 185

 189

 171

 179

 168

 169

 161

 160

 173

 157

 128

 0

 191

 190

 195

 199

 171

 168

 163

 163

 164

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

-224

+346

-166

-79

-232

-19

-367

-140

+79

-154

-198

+21

-206

-97

-172

+50

+339

+47

-174

-325

+4

-260

-55

-633

+295

-263

-28

-32

-936

OR

 12

 58

 35

 15

 27

 27

 39

 54

 35

 39

 35

 8

 58

 19

 43

 47

 23

 70

 63

 31

 31

 12

 20

 59

 32

 32

 4

 32

 24

C.F.S.

 .03

 .15

 .09

 .04

 .07

 .07

 .10

 .14

 .09

 .10

 .09

 .02

 .15

 .05

 .11

 .12

 .06

 .18

 .16

 .08

 .08

 .03

 .05

 .15

 .08

 .08

 .01

 .08

 .06

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .53

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .12

 .01

 .70

 .13

 .05

 .08

 .03

 .09

 .00

 .00

 .61

 .04

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR March 29, 2004

DAILY OPERATIONS

FEBRUARY 2004 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +214,063 119,939 3,428 5,008 0 -3,579 984 2.52 2.42

ACRE-FEET +214,063 237,899 6,799 9,933 0 -7,099 1,952

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 6,799

PACHECO TUNNEL 9,933 TOTAL 16,732

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2003 TO DATE = 7.74

 1,664,413

SPILL 0 2.42

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsParameter Estimation of Actuators for Benchmark Active Control Technology (BACT) Wind Tunnel Model with Analysis of Wear and Aerodynamic Loading EffectsThis report describes the development of transfer function models for the trailing-edge and upper and lower spoiler actuators of the Benchmark Active Control Technology (BACT) wind tunnel model for application to control system analysis and design. A simple nonlinear least-squares parameter estimation approach is applied to determine transfer function parameters from frequency response data. Unconstrained quasi-Newton minimization of weighted frequency response error was employed to estimate the transfer function parameters. An analysis of the behavior of the actuators over time to assess the effects of wear and aerodynamic load by using the transfer function models is also presented. The frequency responses indicate consistent actuator behavior throughout the wind tunnel test and only slight degradation in effectiveness due to aerodynamic hinge loading. The resulting actuator models have been used in design, analysis, and simulation of controllers for the BACT to successfully suppress flutter over a wide range of conditions.Document ID19980211327Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsWaszak, Martin R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Fung, Jimmy*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1998Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberL-17540NASA/TM-1998-208452NAS 1.15:208452AIAA Paper 96-3362Meeting InformationMeeting: Atmospheric Flight Mechanics ConferenceLocation: San Diego, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 29, 1996End Date: July 31, 1996Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-64-52-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980211327.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Kenneth McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. BRUCE MOTOR FREIGHT, Inc., a Corporation.

No. 15288.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

May 13, 1955.

R. E. Killmar and W. Reynoldson, Osceola, Iowa, for appellant.

Frank W. Davis and Ray H. Johnson, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, on stipulation of parties.