alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Chardan South China Acquisition
      Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007
      (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Kerry Propper, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the Company,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.




/s/
                Kerry Propper
            
            Dated:November
                16, 2007Kerry
                PropperChief
                Executive Officer and Secretary(Principal
                Executive Officer)
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2149 

To provide for the issuance and sale of a semipostal by the United States 

Postal Service to support effective programs targeted at improving permanency outcomes for youth in foster care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. CONYERS (for himself and Mr. BUCHANAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce 

and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance and sale of a semipostal by 

the United States Postal Service to support effective 

programs targeted at improving permanency outcomes 

for youth in foster care. 

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 ‘‘Families for Foster 

5 Youth Stamp Act of 2013’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2149 IH

1 SEC. 2. FAMILIES FOR FOSTER YOUTH SEMIPOSTAL. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to increase funding for 

3 effective programs targeted at improving permanency out4 comes for youth in foster care, the United States Postal 

5 Service shall, for a period of not less than 4 years, provide 

6 for the issuance and sale of a semipostal, in accordance 

7 with section 416 of title 39, United States Code. 

8 (b) DISPOSITION OF AMOUNTS.— 

9 (1) ADOPTION OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM.— 

10 Fifty percent of any amounts becoming available 

11 from the sale of the semipostal under this Act shall 

12 be transferred to the Secretary of Health and 

13 Human Services for programs and activities author14 ized under section 203 of the Child Abuse Preven15 tion and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 

16 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5113) that specifically target im17 provement in permanency outcomes for youth in fos18 ter care through adoption, guardianship, or kinship 

19 care. 

20 (2) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.— 

21 Fifty percent of any amounts becoming available 

22 from the sale of the semipostal under this Act shall 

23 be transferred to the Secretary of Health and 

24 Human Services for programs and activities author25 ized under section 438 of the Social Security Act 

26 (42 U.S.C. 629h). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2149 IH

1 (c) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘semipostal’’ 

2 has the meaning given that term in section 416 of title 

3 39, United States Code. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 1753.3 Preconstruction review. ( a ) Advance RUS approval must be obtained for any construction that does not conform to RUS standards and specifications or the approved LD, such as construction of extensions to serve subscribers in areas not included in the LD (See 7 CFR part 1737). For loans approved after RUS approval of the modernization plan in the borrower's state, the proposed construction must conform to the modernization plan, as required by 7 CFR part 1751, subpart B. To obtain approval, the borrower shall submit a written proposal containing: ( 1 ) A description of the work, indicating any deviations from the approved LD or RUS standards and specifications.
( 2 ) An engineering study covering the deviations if there are changes in the design.
( 3 ) A cost estimate for labor, engineering, materials, and overheads.
( 4 ) If applicable, a brief analysis from the borrower demonstrating that the proposed changes conform to the modernization plan.
( b ) Before any construction, including interim construction, is initiated, the GFR shall meet with the borrower to review the LD to determine if any significant changes have occurred since its approval by RUS. It is important that the design and construction of the proposed facilities be based on the latest information on subscriber needs.
( c ) If the borrower and GFR agree that there have been no significant changes, the borrower may proceed.
( d ) If the GFR finds that the LD is no longer satisfactory, the borrower shall prepare an amendment to the LD incorporating the necessary revisions (See 7 CFR part 1737). The borrower must obtain RUS approval of the LD amendment before proceeding with engineering activities on any project to be financed with loan funds.
[54 FR 39267, Sept. 25, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39396, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 66259, Dec. 20, 1993; 59 FR 17464, Apr. 13, 1994; 64 FR 16604, Apr. 6, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,365,286               1,250,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,630,654               4,240,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,097,366               2,031,763
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,143,494               3,731,596
<PP&E>                                         888,784                 834,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                 470,474                 429,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,811,741               7,360,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,652,579               5,624,220
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    217,835                 197,835
<COMMON>                                        68,886                  70,219
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,369,968                 975,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,811,741               7,360,206
<SALES>                                     18,312,254               1,184,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,312,692               1,184,829
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,665,028               1,573,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             322,970                  15,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,833,514)               (410,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,833,514)               (410,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,833,514)               (410,297)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.66)                   (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.66)                   (.06)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7960
EARL THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00324-GEC) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Earl Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Inline Operating Limited d/b/a Inline 

Digital Image, Appellant

No. 06-14-00006-CV v.

Healthmarkets Lead Marketing Group, Inc. 

and Healthmarkets, L.L.C., Appellees

Appeal from the 67th District Court of 

Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 067-

259145-12). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appellant’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED JULY 2, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133417 & (21) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan TIMOTHY B. BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133417 COA: 272417 WCAC: 05-000093 BEST BUY COMPANY, INC., and PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURA NCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96cr78-01/RV

MICHAEL E. DICKEY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Roger Vinson on May 26, 2005 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION to compel the government to provide specific performance of his

plea agreement 

Filed by Defendant on3/8/05 Doc.# 169 

RESPONSES:

Government on 6/6/2005 Doc.# 170

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 7th day of

 June , 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See doc. 170. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00078-RV-MD Document 171 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 1
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Advisory 

Circular

Subject: Change 5 to MEASUREMENT, 

CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF SKIDRESISTANT AIRPORT PAVEMENT SURFACES 

Date: 04/15/2005

Initiated by: AAS-100 

AC No: 150/5320-12C

Change: 5

1. PURPOSE. This change updates information regarding FAA qualified Continuous Friction 

Measuring Equipment.

2. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. The following editorial changes have been made:

 a. Appendix 4. Changes have been made to reflect updated information for manufacturers. 

PAGE CONTROL CHART

Remove Pages Dated Insert Pages Dated 

Appendix 4 

pg. 1 (and 2)

02/03/05 Appendix 4 

pg. 1 (and 2) 

04/15/05 

DAVID L. BENNETT 

Director of Airport Safety 

 and Standards 
04/15/05 AC 150/5320-12C 

Appendix 4 

Change 5 

APPENDIX 4. FAA-APPROVED CFME 

AIRPORT SURFACE FRICTION TESTER INDUSTRIES AB AIRPORT SURFACE FRICTION TESTER 

Metallgatan 7 +46 0 411 651 00 

271 39 Ystad, Sweden FAX +46 0 411 190 12 

SWEDEN sales@ asft.se 

AIRPORT TECHNOLOGY USA SAFEGATE FRICTION TESTER 

NO LONGER AVAILABLE 

DYNATEST CONSULTING, INC., RUNWAY FRICTION TESTER (6810, 6850 and 6875) 

(FORMERLY K.J. LAW ENGINEERS, INC.) (904) 964-3777

13952 US Highway 301 South FAX (904) 964-3749 

Starke, FL 32091 

FINDLAY, IRVINE, LTD. GRIPTESTER FRICTION TESTER

42-44 Bog Road, Penicuik +44 1968 672111 

Midlothian EH 26 9 BU FAX +44 1968 671237 

SCOTLAND www.findlayirvine.com

INTERTECH ENGINEERING TATRA FRICTION TESTER

 NO LONGER AVAILABLE 

DOUGLAS EQUIPMENT LTD MU METER

Douglas House, Village Road +44 1242 531219 

Arle, Cheltenham FAX +44 1242 571667 

Gloucestershire email: spd@douglas-equipment.com

GL51 0AB UK 

NORSEMETER RUNAR RUNWAY ANALYSER AND RECORDER 

P. O. Box 125 +47 23 20 1270 

Bogstadvien FAX + 47 23 20 1271 

0323 0310 

NORWAY 

PATRIA VAMMAS AEC BV-11 SKIDDOMETER 

P.O. Box 18 Vammaksentie + 358 20 4694041 

FIN-38201 Vammala FAX +358 20 4694250 

FINLAND www.patria.fi 

1 (and 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM HERNANDEZ,

FDOC Inmate No. M27195,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv3650-MCR-EMT

MARK S. INCH,

Defendant.

__________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s 

Report and Recommendation dated May 26, 2020. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to 

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted 

and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 20 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20cv3650-MCR-EMT

2. Plaintiff’s motion for “Temporary Restraining Order and[/]or; 

Preliminary Injunctive Relief”, ECF No. 13, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of June 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 20 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 3:20cv3650-MCR-EMT

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 20 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv20-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Motion to Withdraw Pamela 

Flores as counsel for Plaintiff Ahmir Murphy. ECF No. 162. Plaintiff continues to 

be represented by counsel, and representation will continue uninterrupted. This 

motion is, therefore, GRANTED. The Clerk shall disconnect Ms. Flores from 

CM/ECF on this matter. 

SO ORDERED on September 21, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 163 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 1
exv10wn



 






EXHIBIT (10)(n)




2005 COMPENSATION OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT




     As of February 21, 2005, the following are the annual base salaries, target bonuses, and
options granted to the Named Executive Officers for 2005 and those expected to be among the four
most highly compensated executive officers in 2005 (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K)
of Associated Banc-Corp:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	Base	 	 	 	Target	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Executive Officer	 	 	Salary	 	 	 	Bonus	 	 	 	Options	 	 
	 	Paul S. Beideman
President and CEO
	 	 	$	726,000	 	 	 	 	85	%	 	 	 	73,500	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Gordon J. Weber 
Executive Vice
President, Corporate Banking
	 	 	$	369,500	 	 	 	 	50	%	 	 	 	35,000	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Mark J. McMullen 
Executive Vice
President; Director, Wealth Management
	 	 	$	331,750	 	 	 	 	50	%	 	 	 	40,000	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Donald E. Peters 
Executive Vice
President; Director, Systems &
Operations
	 	 	$	309,100	 	 	 	 	40	%	 	 	 	39,000	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Joseph B. Selner 
Executive Vice
President; Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	$	322,900	 	 	 	 	50	%	 	 	 	50,000	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Daniel C. Fischer 
Executive Vice
President, Regional Banking
	 	 	$	341,250	 	 	 	 	50	%	 	 	 	45,000
Exhibit 32.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906**In connection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keith R. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ Keith R. Schroeder Keith R. Schroeder    Chief Financial Officer    November 3, 2006  
30
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7960 

EARL THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:06-cv-00324-GEC)

Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




  The Board of Directors
  Research Frontiers Incorporated

  We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
  (No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623, 333-34163 and 333-80575) on
  Form S-8 and (No. 333-40369 and 333-65219 ) on Form S-3 of Research
  Frontiers Incorporated of our report dated February 28, 2001 relating to the
  balance sheets of Research Frontiers Incorporated as of December 31, 2000
  and 1999 and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
  cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
  31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on
  Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated.


                              /s/ KPMG LLP
                                  KPMG LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 30, 2001
#### Andrew Voninski et al., Appellants, v Richard Olson et al., Respondents.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs, upon stipula*588tion. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—dismiss counterclaim.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-2487

LT Case No. 2016-CA-016914-X

_____________________________

HERITAGE PROPERTY AND 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

PAMELA MILES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.

David Dugan, Judge.

Daniel M. Schwarz, and Kara Rockenbach Link, of Link & 

Rockenbach, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Matthew Struble, of Struble, P.A., Indialantic, for Appellee.

October 3, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, JAY, and SOUD, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________