alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 1, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51168

Summary Calendar

 

MELISSA C. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. 7:03-CV-142)

_______________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court correctly dismissed Taylor’s appeal of the Department of

Labor’s disability determination because such a determination is not subject to judicial

review. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2); see Concordia v. U.S.P.S., 581 F.2d 439, 443 (5th Cir.
2

1978). Taylor has failed to show that the Department of Labor violated a clear statutory

mandate and she raises no constitutional claim not suitable for determination in an

administrative setting. See Woodruff v. United States, 954 F.2d 634, 639 (11th Cir.

1992). Taylor is also prohibited from alleging disability discrimination in violation of the

Rehabilitation Act in order to secure judicial review of the Department of Labour’s

determination. See Meester v. Runyon, 149 F.3d 855, 857 (8th Cir. 1998). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35.3

 



 

SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC

2001 Edmund Halley Drive

Reston, VA 20191



Pursuant to Section 11.03 of the Amended and Restated Omnibus Subservicing Agreement dated February 8, 2016 among Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. ("Subservicer"), Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly known as Navient Solutions, Inc.) as the master servicer and administrator (the "Servicing Agreement"), the undersigned certifies that (a) a review of the Subservicer's activities during the period from January 1,2016 through December 31 , 2016, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision; and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligation under the Servicing Agreement, in all material respects, during such period.



GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.



/s/ Tammy Kielhofer

Tammy Kielhofer

Chief Servicing Officer



March 6, 2017



 



---

---

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert S. Yorgensen, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of STR Holdings, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                               

| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: April 28, 2017 | /s/ Robert S.
        Yorgensen
|-------------------- | -------------------------------
|                     | Name:                          
|                     | Title:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 9, 2021

NO. 03-21-00263-CV

Author Manning The II and The Graphic Knights, Appellants

v.

Sony and Sony Playstation, Appellee

APPEAL FROM JUSTICE COURT PRECINCT 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION --

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 8, 2021. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2nd QUARTER 2006

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 3/30 4/3 4/6 10.00 15.00 14.00 50.00 -11.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 4/6 4/10 4/13 8.00 14.00 13.00 52.00 -17.00

4/13 4/17 4/20 8.00 14.00 13.00 62.00 -27.00

4/20 4/24 4/27 8.00 14.00 13.00 57.00 -22.00

4/27 5/1 5/4 8.00 15.00 14.00 47.00 -10.00

5/4 5/8 5/11 8.00 15.00 14.00 45.00 -8.00

5/11 5/15 5/18 16.00 16.00 14.00 44.00 2.00

5/18 5/22 5/25 20.00 17.00 15.00 44.00 8.00

5/25 5/30 6/1 20.00 18.00 15.00 45.00 8.00

6/1 6/5 6/8 14.00 18.00 15.00 45.00 2.00

6/8 6/12 6/15 8.00 18.00 15.00 53.00 -12.00

6/15 6/19 6/22 8.00 18.00 15.00 56.00 -15.00

6/22 6/26 6/29 10.00 18.00 15.00 52.00 -9.00

541.00 652.00 -111.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

14-DAY BILL 3/28 3/30 4/3 20.00 20.00 0.00

Matures 4/17

11-DAY BILL 4/3 4/6 4/7 13.00 13.00 0.00

Matures 4/17

10-DAY BILL 4/3 4/6 4/7 8.00 8.00 0.00

Matures 4/17

4-DAY BILL 4/10 4/12 4/13 17.00 17.00 0.00

Matures 4/17

13-DAY BILL 5/30 6/1 6/2 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 6/15

8-DAY BILL 6/5 6/6 6/7 10.00 10.00 0.00

Matures 6/15

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS (R) 4/10 4/12 4/17 8.00 8.00

5-Year TIPS 4/20 4/25 4/28 11.00 2.00 11.00

2-Year Note 4/24 4/26 5/1 22.00

5-Year Note 4/24 4/27 5/1 14.00 26.02 9.98

3-Year Note 5/3 5/9 5/15 21.00

10-Year Note 5/3 5/11 5/15 13.00 59.95 -25.95

2-Year Note 5/22 5/24 5/31 22.00

5-year Note 5/22 5/25 5/31 15.00 1.00 24.25 12.75

10-Year Note (R) 6/5 6/8 6/15 9.00 1.00 9.00

2-Year Note 6/22 6/26 6/30 22.00

5-Year Note 6/22 6/27 6/30 15.00 24.57 12.43

172.00 134.78 37.21

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: -73.79

R = Reopening
Exhibit 32.2





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 Congoleum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form  10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
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.











August 13, 2009





/s/ Howard N. Feist III


Howard N. Feist III


Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### AAA MASONRY, INC. and the Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Enrique JUSTIZ et al., Respondents.

No. 42889.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1973. Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS and McCAIN, JJ.,. dissent.
Exhibit 32  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 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Leon J. Olivier, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, 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; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant.    /s/Leon J. OlivierLeon J. OlivierChief Executive Officer   /s/David R. McHaleDavid R. McHaleSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:  May 9, 2008    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00033-CV

IN RE Jose Antonio ORTIZ, Relator

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 10, 2021

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. We have 

the power to issue writs of mandamus, but only when “agreeable to the principles of law regulating 

those writs.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b). For mandamus, a relator has the burden to file a 

petition and record showing “the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate 

remedy exists.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam). Having reviewed the petition and documents included in the appendix, 

we conclude relator has not satisfied this burden. Accordingly, we deny the petition and motion 

for temporary relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-CI-15726, styled In the Interest of Z.A.O.C. and N.S.O.C., Children, 

pending in the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Tina Torres presiding.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Daniel R. Lutz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of
Comarco, Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc. to which it relates.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form
10-Q/A. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Comarco, Inc. and will be retained by Comarco, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|April 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Daniel R. Lutz     
|               |  | Daniel R. Lutz         
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer
On June 9, 2015, the FAA had a telephone conference call with Industrial Skyworks (USA), Inc. 

The FAA felt that the petitioner’s request and the supporting documents contain a number of 

errors, omissions or inconsistencies that are interfering with its ability to fully assess it. The 

following list discusses those inconsistencies. 

1. The letter of petition states Industrial Skyworks will use the Aeryon SkyRanger for night 

time operations, however, the COM states both the SkyRanger and the Scout will be 

operated during night time. 

2. The letter and COM conflict in the description of the lighting systems on each aircraft. 

3. The Safety Case for night time operations states that Industrial Skyworks will re-write its 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to include 30 minutes of dark adaptation prior to 

night flight. The COM and SOP both state there will be sufficient supplemental 

illumination to create daytime-like conditions at ground level. What procedure will ISW 

use to insure this illumination does not degrade the dark adaptation of the pilot or visual 

observer? 

4. Please provide more information regarding the criteria (e.g., training, proficiency, and 

experience-building) to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with the proposed 

night operations. 

5. The COM contains a description of Mission Control Software. Although this is a basic 

illustration, it raises a question. The building may become a natural barrier to visual line 

of sight. 

6. The Safety Case risk matrices state Industrial Skyworks will make numerous changes to 

its manuals and training programs by June 30, 2015. The FAA will continue our 

assessment when we receive those changes.
# 2022 Current Law
No. 00-833.

#### Lehto *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

y0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

139580 & (16)(17) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139580 

 COA: 292089 

Alpena CC: 03-005964-FC 

LYNNE MARIE LUCIER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 8, 2009 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for appointment of 

counsel and the motion to remand are 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 Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 26, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph M. ODonnell, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph M. ODonnell             
|Joseph M. ODonnell                 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|May 5, 2004
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 filing of this Amendment No.1 to the annual report of Attune RTD (the “Company”) on Form
10-K /A for the period ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-K/A”) , as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Shawn Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|1. | The
    Form 10-K/A 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
    of operations of the Company.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/s/ Shawn Davis                                                                   | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Shawn
Davis
        Chief
Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) | 



Dated:
December 30 , 2013
SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES

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

                           DWS Core Plus Income Fund
                              DWS Global Bond Fund

Ian Winship no longer serves as Co-Manager  of each of the  above-listed  funds.
All references to Mr. Winship are hereby deleted.














               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference


                                                          [DWS INVESTMENTS LOGO]
                                                             Deutsche Bank Group

September 8, 2008
DMF-3678
# 1. CDCTC and FSA

# 2. FSA

# 3. CDCTC
#### Henry MASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Henry Mason, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Mason v. State, 273 So.2d 163 (1 Fla.App. 1973).

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: August 3, 2005
**Exhibit 15.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-163715), pertaining to the 2007 Share Incentive Plan and 2008 Share Incentive Plan of China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc. of our report dated April 24, 2012, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2011. 

/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming 

Shanghai, the People’s Republic ofChina 

April 24, 2012
Appendix B

PRIVACY POLICY

One area of notable concern requiring attention regarding public and civil use of UAS 

technologies is personal privacy. Creative Aerial Media LLC believes that an individual’s 

privacy is guaranteed by our Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and is sacrosanct and the 

potential for UAS technology to usurp those rights is very real. As with all new technology, we 

must move slowly in its application as we seek to include it in our daily lives. There are many

emotional issues to overcome in the use of UAS technologies and part of our job in the UAS 

community is to ensure we educate and gain the trust of all people and to ensure we are ever 

mindful of their privacy concerns. Through demonstrated and responsible use and 

communication with the public, we can show that UAS can be used in a safe and effective 

manner in our National Airspace System.

Creative Aerial Media LLC will comply with all federal, state, and/or local privacy policies or 

rules that may apply in particular areas where the DJI Inspire 1 is used. Further, because we will 

only fly over property with the permission of the appropriate land owner, the likelihood that we 

will collect private information of an unknown person is minimal. Imagery will be reviewed in a 

secure location to ensure that only the requested imagery was obtained and any imagery that is 

considered private will be destroyed within 72 hours.

1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURMAJOR SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70808

Agency No. A078-674-062

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Gurmajor Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and reviews de novo

FILED

JAN 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70808

claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because he failed to show he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of

counsel. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901-03 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to

reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in

determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility

for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538

F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th

Cir. 2006) (the agency is presumed to have considered the entire record).

Finally, Singh’s request for a stay of removal until his status is adjusted is

denied. This does not effect our order dated August 25, 2010, granting Singh a

stay of removal pending review.

PETITION FOR REVIEWED DENIED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

BATISTA MADONIA, III; ANGELA MADONIA;

JOSEPHINE ARGENTO; and THE FAMILY FARM ON 41, LLC

,

Appellant s

,

v.

TAMELA MADONIA,

Appellee.

Nos. 2D2023

- 1064, 2D2023

- 2041

CONSOLIDATED

July 10, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Melissa M. Polo,

Judge.

M. D. Purcell, Jr., Tampa , for Appellants.

K.C. Bouchillon of K.C. Bouchillon, P.A., Bartow; and Thomas M.

Saunders of Saunders Law Group, Bartow, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

ROTHSTEIN

- YOUAKIM, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.