alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
TO STOCK TRANSFER Agreement and AMONG PHILUX GLOBAL Group Inc. (f/k/a PHI GROUP, INC.), Tin Thanh Group Joint Stock Company (“TTG”)
and Mr. Tran Dinh Quyen, the holder of at least fifty-one percent (51.00%) of equity ownership in TTG.


 





 



 


AMENDMENT
TO STOCK TRANSFER AGREEMENT 


 


THIS
AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of October 03, 2022 with respect to the STOCK TRANSFER
AGREEMENT dated August 13, 2022, among Philux Global Group Inc. (f/k/a PHI Group, Inc.) a U.S. public company duly organized and
existing by virtue of the laws of the State Wyoming, U.S.A. with principal address at 2323 Main Street, Irvine, CA 92614, U.S.A., hereinafter
referred to as “PGG”, Tin Thanh Group Joint Stock Company, a joint stock company organized and existing by virtue of the
laws of Socialist Republic of Vietnam, with principal business address at 71 Pho Quang Street, Ward 2, Tan Binh District, Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam, hereinafter referred to as “TTG” and Mr. Tran Dinh Quyen, the holder of at least fifty-one percent (51.00%)
of equity ownership in TTG as of the effective date of said Stock Transfer Agreement (the “Majority Shareholder”), hereinafter
referred to as “Seller.”


 


All
the parties herein agree to the following item of this Amendment:


 


7.
CLOSING


 


7.1
Closing Date. The Closing Date shall be within ninety (90) days following the signing
of the Stock Transfer Agreement, unless amended otherwise in writing by TTG, the Majority Shareholder and PGG.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the referenced Stock Transfer Agreement as of the day and year
written below.


 


	Dated:
    October 3, 2022	 	Dated:
    October 3, 2022
	TIN
    THANH GROUP JSC	 	MAJORITY
    SHAREHOLDER/SELLER
	a
    Vietnamese Joint Stock Company	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
    	/signed
    and sealed/ Tran Dinh Quyen	 	By:	/s/
    Tran Dinh Quyen                                     
	 	Tran
    Dinh Quyen	 	 	Tran
    Dinh Quyen
	 	Chairman
    & Chief Executive Officer	 	 	An
    individual


 


	Dated:
    October 3, 2022	 
	PHILUX
    GLOBAL GROUP INC.	 
	A
    Wyoming corporation	 
	 	 
	By:
    	/signed
    and sealed/ Henry D Fahman	 
	 	Henry
    D. Fahman	 
	 	Chairman
    & Chief Executive Officer
ee * iy 1d bed ia ry ime 1s aces |
7 nowia-ttbn Conon Fear gies tame ema Se A Re Re aatalak Bi
Page No. piri asserts eg e Mase tests sabe esters oh. oben nme ance
Sepervite’s Dist. No. AREF dane 1, 1880) will be OMTFTED. of Pamnien whe have DIRD SINCE June 1, 1880, Witt be INCLUDED.” 414

Aa Ips) Note C-Rretons Hoe, $4 20 and are nto bean In rept 8 parsons under 10 renee of mam.
Enemarstion Dit.

} MEME ype ti | 2
SCHEDULE 1-—Inhbitants in /2Sturdacle Bly a Mmashe, in theCoumtyot Aa Hann, Stave of Mill grera
; enumerated by me on the day of June, 1880, \

ral

SS
7 ;

wy
pe sa
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

ss 4 Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. 2

- eT HANSEL

" Ti ES
area FYE) AE =A be
“ if int

s nara

=X larg : +1

ay F f

¥ cs

—— ies
[es $2 ledabcnty off Wd bs ie
» 3 ti

y GaP i

“4 ab

AN ¢ v2 .
ei 3 NC a
a ru :*
OD |b 53 | heed detonate ( A
ae ae ae _
) Ayla £5. bk FP
; 4 ao Me av, 3 77)

S Tow, oh 33)

pp "av 97 2

z ae a)

. ‘ geil 4
#### In the Interest of S. T. P., D. K. P.

No. 66-830.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 10, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1967.

Sheldon Yavitz, Miami Beach, for appellant

Earl Faírcloth, Atty. Gen., Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen F. Baz-zano, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Dade County, which adjudicated the designated minor children as being dependent children within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 39.01(10), F. S. A.

On this appeal, it is first urged that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant, had been granted custody of the children-by a divorce decree of the circuit court. It is apparent that this position cannot be sustained in view of the holding in. In Interest of S.L.T., Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 374, 376.

Appellant’s remaining points on appeal' are directed to the weight and sufficiency-of the evidence. A review of the record' convinces us that no reversible error has-been shown. See Noeling v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 593; In Re C.E.S., Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 610.

Affirmed.
i
‘An Enumeration of the Inhabit-
fants of the town Of 6 h4arZSlour |

Names of Heads of Families, Names of Heads of Families.
' Names of fe :
& 3

Free white Males of 16}
years and upwards.

ds

| years and upwards.

Ail other free Peérfons.

Free @

vee whith Males of 16
upwards

|F

ears old, ena
iy, rN A a ie
Free white Males, under

~“
‘“

Jopandol
Mantnw

Loa

5 WS

. Gorter

MN Aare Stgfrre
| Miorihe Gar deur
lS bo Aecdlerr

| | Lest Coren
| NM Aer Bard
hn Yoarres

CHAE MOS

YN

on
QX SUN
‘%

;
,
Tr

oh Cay
“fe hue
‘Welty

dt Seexe
ah? Pegg we

i: e Corg
ate: Geller

ff
Ap te22

ee Be

Sy PSS SS

Al

© OLN WN DYN

SS

meer Ge LI
a, fh alert

paw Lb 0
tat Ae x

fhe Jeihrg
a *

fe”

Lp vid Edrmrerdl\
ws) asl Vie er
} we Gord won po
Nite Pb lon

brah Miller

Nati / Caro

v4 Chur fbvrtel
awit <a a0

| "lars ates Carney
Tha! learrtt

l 7, 4 £2 asian al
Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

G

Y
Mon VSvW AS
A FOK
a

PPIs alee cea8
pak as Ve rtr
ph Setter
jb Me StoMier
Ware tlh rclernro

toe Taf G

2 Calter
rl Smtada:
, welhey Shomfesore
‘ se Pee LoL
or Chawe bra hr
be mast Veirhall
a Jar gor |
‘oga cL Ci fra LOE
° hide
sits Oprummtalll

ae La nr Sa
eae iler
t fear:

) gh foro

Ri Gould

Se Do Se KOSS ORR,

hy

Se hehe ae ARs
PAGE SENS AT LW ES SEED GYLWA ANGWWS NANG OOWHNN

NW AMIN
Bh WN

LO

oh

Visit http:/Mwww.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

we

TRE 4 ~ AN

hat 7tin
po, GLE hard
~ be alti Ns

i/

A Ltclhwrt

Fae

B | Carag 8 fo NN 29 8 BAF SONG WANN BOSASNNNA LES EAVES VO SENSSSAGAS 5

e. \ ty SAW ag\ S
#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO. v. SELLERS.

No. 36476.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 197 So.2d 832.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          11,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     72,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,536
<PP&E>                                         857,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                 478,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 644,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,520
<BONDS>                                        585,423
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,695
<OTHER-SE>                                   (217,570)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   644,488
<SALES>                                        201,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               201,165
<CGS>                                          193,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,930)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.93)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,231
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             350
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     58,164
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          64,650
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            64,164
<LOANS>                                        761,349
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 941,007
<DEPOSITS>                                     544,832
<SHORT-TERM>                                   184,861
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,059
<LONG-TERM>                                    119,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 941,007
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,786
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,211
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,997
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,172
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,857
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,140
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      425
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,245
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,245
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.32
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,600
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,400
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,020
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      153
<RECOVERIES>                                       117
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,409
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,409
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
Order filed, February 05, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00022

- CV

____________ CLAUDIA HARPER, INDI VIDUALLY AND AS INDE PENDENT CO

EXECUTRIX FOR THE ES TATE OF JAMES WESLEY CLERK, JR., AND ALICE CLARK , Appellant

V.

KIRBY CORPORATION AN D KIRBY INLAND MARIN E, L.P. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 09913A



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due February 04, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35 .1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Terri Anderson , the official cou rt reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
hele. a. omen Dh Re in F
A Sepecrtoers Dinteet Mie, ST 4A
Rasmer ered trie me Qik 10, —+ ee, —_
Crepe, Ex COCUPATION AND OreueraT *
= R ed own a.
enl|lh
<* Rest peasess| FF
- - = ale lele Tate = va > le
. acerca | — 7
a " . mm 240
‘ | Matta an Ee eal BE uke dep |2ra3]
° . ° . |
Ts] [Thine jens “— 2S :
rd t+—T- Ss Bee be a a oe I
¥ =e . : 1
‘Bs die Wes?) (hn oS BS a » AL
oT ‘ S teaming |i arsic uf u
G3 H ¥ v1 Vesen Peers | | ’ "|
i is | : ieeenalTM bees a Ke Td adn BEG .
aes | | Liawia | errant {ting lon — ci ale samen ea o
al ii. . Winders |Yineaenrs lratenne | dg TT Cereals nwa
. : : Wsaeenante Pitan |i naericn rl _| —T re) “
nail | OF i | a ~~ ry a 7 am
te -a eek, ¥ SoC SY . P al ] 7 *
- ee Z Wiaaarrani _| Mier | Yanna rie e 4 ad =-|
Fer est) Oe ee | a
rr . can a x 9a os
i= i Ss + | ge! e7 es ee
222 | ri bepals oom aa oe
| - i——+-+-" Ss Ramocrscd. | ue & 2
epee tt hte a oe a :
- a — Sothern 1S athena | ¥
Ss : 5/7 aT oe a Priel -
’ a es . -be bo — mae * - uae - meee = .
_ ieee Ae
3 ahs a . Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. mite a
a! ——
m4 Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. = -
roa LJ
bt 7 aA. anlage i ee aoe ~ ; { 2
era Rime ae} Ha Tinlany +} Prana é ni
| Manat aden — Se Silence St 1s tar] 2
= oS ee y eo ices sand ta a —_|-Te
* sf Se Cm Meader on
y hs VSylp
i re ater noses Linn er
5 Z Vv 1 ~ r ~ =

, oe 0
#### Bobby Lee EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Sarasota, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Baya Harrison, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Judge.

The appellant appeals his conviction of murder in the second degree.

The appellant was accused of shooting and killing the decedent during the course of a barroom fight. Appellant raised a plea of self defense, and the jury was charged on this plea. Despite the appellant’s contention to the contrary, the record contains sufficient evidence to uphold the jury’s conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by statements of the prosecuting attorney tending to reflect his individual belief in the appellant’s guilt. The Supreme Court has held it to be a sound rule of practice that the prosecution should not in argument express belief in the guilt of the defendant. Grant v. State, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 361. Even though no objections were made to the prosecutor’s comments, it has been held that certain improper argument can be said to be so prejudicial to the rights of an accused as to constitute fundamental error. Pait v. State, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 380.

The appellant’s contention centers around the fact that the prosecuting attorney prefaced many of his comments with the words “I think.” Apparently, the prosecutor had an unfortunate habit of using these words to introduce each new topic of discussion. These words, by. themselves, *541tend to reflect a personal opinion of the speaker. Nevertheless, when they are read in the context of what the prosecutor went on to say he thought, they appear to be innocuous. Having studied the argument in its entirety, we cannot say that the expressions of personal opinion which were made by the prosecution in this case constituted prejudicial error.

The judgment is affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Individually, and on Behalf of the University of Southwestern Louisiana v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

No. 53469.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Board of Education of the State of Louisiana, Individually and on Behalf of the University of Southwestern Louisiana applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant injunctive relief.
#### Daniel Lee GUSTAFSON and Avis Rent A Car Corporation, Appellants, v. Ward H. ROBERTS, Appellee.

No. 73-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James C. Downey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### DIATOMITE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. F. I. duPONT, GLORE FORGAN & COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 72-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Elwood Lamar ALBRIGHT v. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 35948.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Appeal dismissed without opinion.
#### McDermott vs. Mathis as Sheriff, etc.

The listing of lands for taxation, under the act of 7th January, 1857, by the levee inspectors, raises the presumption that they are such as would be benefited by levee work, and this presumption is not rebutted by proof that they “ are not sub. ject to overflow from the Mississippi river, nor protected by levees” — the lands might be benefited otherwise than by protection from overflow.

*Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court in Chancery.*

IIon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Randolph,

Harrison & Hooker, for the appellant.

S. H. Hempstead for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question in this case, not decided in *McGehee vs. Mathis,*at the present term, is whether the lands of the appellant are such as would be benefited by the construction of levees, within the meaning of the act of 7th January, 1857.

The act provides that there shall be levied and collected, a tax on all alluvial lands “ that would be benefited by levees.”

The listing of the lands for taxation by the levee inspectors, raises the presumption that they are such as would be benefited by levee work, and this presumption must prevail if not rebutted by other competent testimony in the cause.

The evidence agreed upon by the parties, and relied on to *61overturn the presumption thus raised, is, that the lands of the appellant “ are not subject to overflow from the Mississippi river, nor protected by levees.” This we think is not sufficient. For instance, a tract of land, though not subject itself to overflow, may nevertheless be so situate in the vicinity of other lands, which are, as to prevent the proprietor from conveniently getting to it, or from it, when the water is high. In such a case it could hardly be contended, that the land would not be benefited by the construction of a levee.

It might be difficult to lay down with precision, any general rule which would be applicable to all cases — nor is it necessary in the case before us, that we should attempt to do so. We think it manifest, however, that the legislature did not intend to restrict the term “ benefited,” to protection from actual overflow, in its application to each particular tract of land lying within the overflowed district.

Let the decree of the Court below be affirmed with costs.

Absent, Mr. Justice Rector.

*Note.*— The same questions were involved in the following cases, which were, also, affirmed:

*Montgomery vs. Mathis, as Sheriff, etc.*

*Jackson*& *Co. vs. same.*

*Wilson vs. same.*

*C. C. McDermott vs. same.*
Name(Last,First,Middle)TitleCompany/OrganizationStreetAddressPhoneEmailWebinar Attendees: The Commercial Ice Makers MeetingFaxCityState/ProvZipMeeting Date:4/14/2014N/AU.SDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)abdelazizoa@ornl.gov1000IndependenceAve.SWN/AAbdelaziz,OmarN/AWashingtonDC20585N/AIce‐O‐MaticJay.Almblad@iceomatic.comN/A303-576-2961Almblad,JayN/ADenverCON/AAssociateAttorneyEarthjusticetballo@earthjustice.org1625MassachusettsAvenue,NW,Suite702202-667-4500Ballo,Timothy202‐667‐2356WashingtonDC20036VicePresidentofResearch&Development‐AmericasScotsmanIndustriesJohn.Broadbent@iceomatic.com11100E.45thAvenue303-576-3058Broadbent,John303‐371‐6296DenverCO80239EngineerEmersonbrian.buynacek@emerson.com138AshwoodLane937-238-1160Buynacek,BrianN/AOrchardParkNY14127N/AU.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)jack.graul@ee.doe.gov950L'EnfantPlazaN/AGraul,JackN/AWashingtonDC20024N/ADanfossLLCdean.groff@danfoss.com11655CrossroadsCircleN/AGroff,DeanN/ABaltimoreMD21220‐2863N/AN/Ajharding@emsmotors.com701W.KingStreetN/AHarding,JohnN/AGarrettIN46738N/APacificNorthwestNationalLaboratory(PNNL)donna.hostick@pnnl.gov902BattelleBoulevardN/AHostick,DonnaN/ARichlandWA99352PresidentHoweCorporationmchowe@howecorp.com1650N.ElstonAvenue773-235-0200Howe,MaryC.773‐235‐1530ChicagoIL60642‐1585N/AN/Akevinknatt@hotmail.com1012PortDianeDriveN/AKnatt,KevinN/ASt.LouisMO63146VPEngineeringHoweCorporationjmackowiak@howecorp.com1650N.ElstonAveN/AMackowiak,JeffN/AChicagoIL60642Page1of209/10/201412:44:34Name(Last,First,Middle)TitleCompany/OrganizationStreetAddressPhoneEmailWebinar Attendees: The Commercial Ice Makers MeetingFaxCityState/ProvZipMeeting Date:4/14/2014StatisticianandEnergyAnalystPacificNorthwestNationalLaboratory(PNNL)scott.morris@pnnl.gov902BattelleBoulevardP.O.Box999,MSINK6‐05509-372-6454Morris,ScottN/ARichlandWA99532N/AN/Awilliam.olson@manitowoc.com2110S.26StN/AOlson,WilliamN/AManitowocWI54220N/ANaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC)eosann@nrdc.org1314SecondStreet310-434-2300Osann,EdwardR310‐434‐2399SantaMonicaCA90401EnergyEfficiencyAdvocateNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC)mwaltner@nrdc.org115215thStreet,NWSuite300202-513-6270Waltner,Meg202‐289‐1060WashingtonDC20005EnvironmentalScientistNewYorkStateOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral(NYSOAG)Linda.Wilson@ag.ny.gov120Broadway212-416-8948Wilson,Linda212‐416‐6007NewYorkNY10271SeniorResearchEngineer‐EnergyandEngineeringDivisionPacificNorthwestNationalLaboratory(PNNL)david.winiarski@pnl.govwiniarski@charter.net902BattelleBoulevardP.O.Box999MSINK5‐08509-375-4461Winiarski,David509‐375‐3614RichlandWA99337VicePresident,StandardsAir‐Conditioning,Heating&RefrigerationInstitute(AHRI)mwoodford@ahrinet.org2111WilsonBoulevard,Suite500703-600-0328Woodford,MichaelW.703‐528‐3816ArlingtonVA22201N/AKold‐Draftjzwigart@kold‐draft.com1525ElakeRdN/AZwigart,JohnN/AEriePA16511ContactsIncluded:20DocketId:EERE‐2010‐BT‐STD‐0037Page2of209/10/201412:44:42
#### Anthony E. MACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-592.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant, Anthony Eugene Mack, seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after being found guilty on the charge of carrying a concealed firearm. Two police officers stopped defendant after noticing a suspicious bulge in his right pocket. The officers seized a revolver from defendant and subsequently an information was filed charging him with carrying a concealed firearm in violation of F.S. § 790.01, F.S.A. Pursuant to the trial court’s adjudication defendant was sentenced to sixty (60) days in the Dade County Jail.

On appeal it is contended that the trial judge deprived defendant of a fair trial by repeatedly displaying a lack of neutrality toward defendant. No objections, however, were made at trial to any of the alleged incidents of misconduct. Since the errors complained of by defendant are *383not fundamental they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Dickenson v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 261 So.2d 561; Scarpati v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 335; Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 769; Worthington v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 728.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence herein appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.