alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Program 3528-S Contract Term: Date of Award through December 31, 2012 plus 4 option years

UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST

I. COMPLETE PRODUCT:

1 SCANNING of furnished (8-1/2 x 11’, 8-1/2 x 14”) originals and tab dividers

(a) Digital scanning, PDF conversion...............per scanned page/divider ........................ 30,000 0.11 $3,300.00 0.11 $3,300.00

(b) “Bates” serial number endorsement...............per page .......................................... 1,500 0.01 $15.00 0.04 $60.00

(c) OCR processing, creation of text-searchable content.........per scanned page/divider .... 1,500 0.03 $45.00 0.21 $315.00

(d) Burning, labeling, packing CD-R disc(s)......................per disc ............................... 12 5.00 $60.00 8.95 $107.40

(e) Burning, labeling, packing DVD-R disc(s)...................per disc ................................ 3 7.50 $22.50 13.33 $39.99

(f) Scanning of large format documents larger than 11 x 17” to 24 x 36”...............per square foot 150 0.35 $52.50 0.96 $144.00

2 GENERATION OF “BLOWBACK” HARDCOPIES from furnished digital files

(a) Time to assess furnished digital assets and generate/submit an accurate job estimate to IRS ......per hour 2 65.00 $130.00 50.00 $100.00

(b) Time work required to process and otherwise prepare furnished digital files for printing of 

“blowback” copies [exclusive of cost(s) charged to Item 3(c)]..................per hour ............. 16 65.00 $1,040.00 46.67 $746.72

(c) Printing of “blowback” copies (printing on one side in black)........per printed 8-1/2 x 11” sheet 1,500 0.05 $75.00 0.07 $105.00

3 Litigation COPYING (no digital capture: black or color, on one side only)

(a) “Bates” serial numbering.................................................per page ............................ 4,000 0.06 $240.00 0.04 $160.00

(b) Copying of case files, black..........per printed 8-1/2 x 11” sheet ....................................... 400 0.11 $44.00 0.10 $40.00

(c) Copying of case files, black..........per printed 8-1/2 x 14” sheet ...................................... 3,600 0.11 $396.00 0.11 $396.00

(d) Copying of case files, color..........per printed 8-1/2 x 11” sheet ....................................... 30 0.45 $13.50 0.43 $12.90

(e) Copying of case files, color..........per printed 8-1/2 x 14” sheet ....................................... 30 0.45 $13.50 0.43 $12.90

(f) Copying of tab dividers...................................per printed tab divider ............................. 40 0.35 $14.00 0.26 $10.40

(g) Copying of large format documents, black, larger than 11 x 17” to 24 x 36”......per square foot 20 0.35 $7.00 0.70 $14.00

(h) Copying of large format documents, color, larger than 11 x 17” to 24 x 36”......per square foot 10 5.00 $50.00 4.90 $49.00

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $5,518.00 $5,613.31

DISCOUNT 0.00% 0.00%

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $5,518.00 $5,613.31

AWARDED

GPO Estimate

Proofread by: FM

Perpared by: TF

Title: Litigation Style Scanning/Copying of FOIA Case Files (Detroit, MI)

ITEM

BASIS 

OF 

DESCRIPTION AWARD

Detroit Legal Imaging 

Detroit, MI
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation 
Enhancement Act

AGENCY: Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests, USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of proposed new fee sites.

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

SUMMARY: The Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests in South Carolina 
are proposing to charge new fees at eight rifle range facilities: Cedar 
Creek, Indian Creek, Fairforest, Leeds, Philson Crossroads, Beaver Dam 
Creek, Candy Branch and Boggy Head Rifle Ranges. All sites have 
recently been reconstructed to improve services and experiences. The 
proposed new fees to help maintain these sites would be $5 per person 
per day or $40 per person per year. Fees are assessed based on the 
level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and 
maintenance, market assessment, and public comment.

DATES: Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 6, 2018 so 
comments can be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation 
Resource Advisory Committee. New fees would begin after July 2018.

ADDRESSES: John Richard Lint, Forest Supervisor, Francis Marion & 
Sumter National Forests, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Robles, Recreation Fee 
Coordinator, 803-561-4067. Information about proposed fee changes can 
also be found on the Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests website: 
http://www.fs.usda.gov/scnfs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act 
(Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new 
recreation fee areas are established. These eight shooting ranges are 
experiencing unprecedented use/demand with the associated impacts to 
the facilities themselves and surrounding natural resources. New fees 
would help with enforcing range rules to keep the facilities safe and 
clean; maintaining shooting range structures (e.g., berms, swales, 
settling ponds) and ground cover (grass) to mitigate runoff and 
pollution; and performing annual soil and water testing and lead 
abatement work. Fees would also help to improve the facilities with 
items such as better parking facilities, shelter roof modifications to 
incorporate baffles, and making enhancements like establishing 
designated pistol ranges.
    Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be 
reviewed by the Southern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee 
prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Glen Casamassa,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2018-14405 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Bontex,
Inc.'s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the six months
ended December 31, 1998, as set forth in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         366
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                   258
<INVENTORY>                                    7,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,042
<PP&E>                                         25,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 33,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,962
<BONDS>                                        2,226
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          157
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   33,251
<SALES>                                        18,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,429
<CGS>                                          14,174
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               37
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (280)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.56)
        


</TABLE>
#### Richard R. DU PUY, Appellant, v. Esther Elizabeth DU PUY, Appellee.

No. 68-595.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 5, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
14910-I3-P]



### DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTAnON Federal AvuaHon Administration (;o~WRH,NCf$ (JUTINGSVMOOL 

## ." I;'~. INITl.~t.Si5IG 

### 14CFR Part 39 !, i : "



# I\\\ (Docket No. FAA-2009-*****j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM~147-ADI RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directivesj Bombardier Model CL-600-2CIO (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2Dl5 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

### ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results 

## tram mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The 

### MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: During an elevator Power Control Unit (PCD) Centering Functional Check on two CL·600-2CIO aircraft, sustained oscillations were discovered when a control rod was disconnected. These sustained oscillations could render the elevator surface inoperable and cause subsequent loss of pitch control of the aircraft. 

## C-~
DATE 

# HH/,'1
~OUTING 'YMIlOL

LNlTIAl.s •• ,!~ 

# ,~4 ,1h¢'l.J"-- 

# iHv- Dt

]



### - i " ~ NlTIAU""G

'NIT'AL'I"G

'" 

## * * * 

## * * * Loss of pitch control could result in reduced controllability oftbe airplane. The proposed !!,(l\m~GsYMIl{lL AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCALDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Adlllinistl'ation

'" ,,".~,!lU 

### "'''''''''''''.'''''''11 ;\~IIO~I711 14CFR Part 39 (Docket No. FAA-2009-"'*"'**; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-147-AUI RIN 2120-AA64 Ainrol'thincss Dil'ectives; Bombmdicr Model CL-600-2C I0 (Regional Jet Series 700. 701 & 702), CL-600-2D 15(Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulern<lking(NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose toudopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe producL.'> listed above. This proposed AD rcsllltsl'rom mandatory continuing airwOlthiness information (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl deseribcs the LUlsal'C condition as: During an elevator .Power Control Ullit (PCU) Centering functional Check on two CL-600-2CIO aircraft, sustained oscillations were discovered whcn acontrol rodwasdisconnected. These susluincd oscillations could render the elevator surface inoperubh:: and cause subsequent loss of pilChcontrol ofthe aircmfc 1lO'" •• ". " ••n,,, LGIlIAEG

',,"J



### ''''''.



# • • • • • 

# • • TA1SSofpitch contmJ c{)uldresult inreduced controllability ofthe airplane. ·rlle prop0i'cd 10""'; AD would require <:lctions that arc intended fa address the un~ar(: condition described in the MCAL
#### Tana L. NEFF, Peter Alan Newcombe and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Max Merrett HIGHTOWER, Appellee.

No. 70-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 24, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; William G. Akridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
NUMBER 13-19-00654-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

AMERICAN TV/ELECTRONICS, INC. 

DBA AMERICAN AC & HEATING Appellant,

v.

MARCELO AND JOVANA 

GARCIA VICTORIANO TREVINO, Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 398th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

This matter is before the Court on the appellant’s failure to file a brief or reasonably 

explain the failure to do so. The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on June 9, 

2020. On August 25, 2020, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had 
2

not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution 

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date 

of the letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not 

significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. 

The Clerk’s office called appellant’s counsel and was informed the case had 

settled. To date, no brief, response to correspondence, nor motion regarding a settlement, 

if any, have been received by the Court.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed the 

7th day of January, 2021.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s tha tthi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f or ** d e c is io n w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LA / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E RN E S T J. B R O O K S , II I, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. W I L L I A M B . K O L E N D E R , S h e r if f ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 56432 D. C . No . 3 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 7 4 9 - J AH C AB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . H ous t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E rn e s t J . B r o o k s , I I I , af o rm e rp r e tr ia l d e ta in e e a t S an D ie g o C o u n tyJ a il, appe a l s pr o s e f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL A/ Res ea r ch 08- 56432 2 ac t i on cl ai m i ng thatj ai l pers on nel w er e del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entt o h i s m edi ca l n e e d s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . T oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F. 3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t edsu m m ary j u d g m en tt o d efen d an t s b ecau se B r o o k s f a ile dto r a is e atr iab le is s u e a s to w h e th e ra n yd e f e n d an t in te n tio n a lly d e lay e do rin te r f

e r e dw ith tr e a tm e n t o f

B r o o k s ’ k n e e . Se e H

al le t t v . Mor gan , 296 F . 3d 732, 744 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( “ P r i s on of f i c i a l s a r e de l i be r a t e l yi ndi f f e r e ntt o a p r is o n e r ’s m e d ic a l n e e d s w h e n th e yd e n y , d e lay , o rin te n tio n a llyin te r f e r e w ith m e di c a l tr e a tm e nt ” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks om i tt e d) . B r ooks di d not d em o n strat e th ath i s p ro b l em w as so sev ere th ata d el ay i n treatm en tco u l dcau se s ig n if ic a n t h a rm , o rth a t d e f

e n d a n ts s h o u ldh a v e k n o w n th is to b e th e c a s e . Se e i d. ; s e e al s o Fr os t v . A gnos , 1 5 2 F . 3 d1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 8 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (h o l d i n g th at , b ecau se p retri al d et ai n ees’ F o u rt een th A m en d m en tri g h t s are co m p arab l e t o p ri so n ers’ E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts , th e s a m e s tan d ar d s ap p ly ) . B rook s’ re m ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .
259 La. 754

#### James H. WARE, Jr., et al. v. Harvey W. CANNON, Jr., et al.

No. 51578.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: James H. Ware, Jr., et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 248 So.2d 19.

Application denied. The result is correct.

SUMMERS, BARHAM and DIXON, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should .he granted.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00940-CV

Dawn Comeaux 

v.

Villages of Louetta

NO. 1053972 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW NO 4 OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

FILING $195.00 11/24/2014 NOT PAID ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$195.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this May 13, 2015.
#### Fred CASH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-450.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 13, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks review of an adverse order in a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The thrust of the amended petition collaterally attacking the verdict, judgment and sentence under review, is alleged perjury by a police officer which was known by the prosecuting officials. We find no error and affirm.

This procedure partakes of a civil remedy. State v. Weeks, Fla. 1964, 166 So.2d 892; Barton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 597; Whitney v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 207; Bryant v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 9. It is incumbent upon the appellant to make error appear. Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 699; Plymale v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So.2d 85; Bryant v. State, supra. Unless there is no substantial evidence to support his conclusions, the trial judge will be affirmed. Swarthout v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 773; Carroll v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 834. The trial judge failed to find that perjured testimony was involved. A review of the record reveals *19that this conclusion is amply supported. Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644, 187 So. 392; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524; Duval v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 789. Further, it is apparent that the prosecuting officials, even if perjury had existed [which was not shown] were not aware of such and, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to the relief sought. Harris v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 312; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 618; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 459.

For the above stated reasons, the verdict, judgment and sentence here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Louis Leroy EDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and James O. Brecher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

No reversible error having been demonstrated by the briefs and no fundamental error having been discovered upon a review of the record, the final judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
257 La. 174

#### Leon C. MONCLA, Raymond Mahrouz and Donald D. Doll v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE, Louisiana.

No. 51020.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: City of Lafayette applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 241 So.2d 307.

Application not considered — Since applicant failed to apply for a rehearing from the Court of Appeal’s decision (On Rehearing) in favor of plaintiff, this Court is without jurisdiction under Sec. 11 of Article VII of our Constitution. See also Article 2167 CCP, Rule 11, Sec. 5 of the Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal, R.S. 13:4450 and compare and see discussion in State, Department of Highways v. Mason, 254 La. 1035, 229 So.2d 89 (1969).
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 414 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 414

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 3, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3254) to authorize appropriations for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology now printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered by title rather than by section. Each title of the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of 
order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure 
to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### CARNAHAN, THOMPSON and RICE vs. ALLDERDICE, JEANDELL and MILES.

Judgment against an infant and others jointly, on a joint and several bond, irregular.

Rule. In this case the court, on motion and rule to show cause, vacated a judgment confessed against the three defendants jointly, on a joint and several warrant of attorney; on proof that two of them were under age at the date of the warrant.

Rule absolute.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 25, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-563

Lower Tribunal No. F16-3222

________________

Jordan Baez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Ana M. Davide, P.A., and Ana M. Davide, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.