alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,260,892
<SECURITIES>                                 1,169,666
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,430,558
<PP&E>                                      19,028,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,459,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,339,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,459,173
<SALES>                                      1,795,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,961,564
<CGS>                                           96,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               550,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,313,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,313,894
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,313,894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    19.01
        

</TABLE>
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice

JUDY C. PARKER

Justice

LAWRENCE M. DOSS

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

BOBBY RAMIREZ

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

January 8, 2021

Cedric DeWayne McNeal

TDCJ-ID #2317254

Montford Unit

8602 Peach Street

Lubbock, TX 79404

John L. Owen

Assistant District Attorney

501 South Fillmore Street, Suite 5A

Amarillo, TX 79101

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hillary Netardus

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 50652

Amarillo, TX 79159

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-20-00013-CR, 07-20-00014-CR, 07-20-00015-CR, 07-20-00016-

CR

Trial Court Case Number: 76,641-B, 76,642-B, 76,722-B, 77,067-B

Style: Cedric Dewayne McNeal v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. McNeal and Counsel:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgment in the captioned cause. TEX. R. APP. 

P. 48.

In addition, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 51.204(b)(2), exhibits on file with 

this Court, if any, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case or at an earlier 

date if ordered by the Court.

Very truly yours,

Bobby Ramirez

Bobby Ramirez, Clerk

cc: Honorable John B. Board (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Honorable Dan L. Schaap (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Carley Snider (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
NUMBER 13-17-00709-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

CRAIG CHANG, Appellant,

v.

DEANNA L. CHANG, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Craig Chang, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 24th 

District Court of Victoria County, Texas, in cause number 17-02-80663-A. This cause is 

before the Court on appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Appellant 

requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) 

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the

15th day of March, 2018.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-4878

_____________________________

STEVEN MORGAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.

Robert M. Foster, Judge.

February 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and MAKAR and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Laurel Cornell Niles, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Daniel Krumbholz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         August 2, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 27, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Parcel Select Contract 32 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-197, CP2018-275.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-16520 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Rew bite Moree

|
|

Fe nn cer Moorman)

he §

Mw

ever 50 1369) 565 9:

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

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

Wen
tee
bOKawbamn | Ho

SK. fayne |,
Crtusseuth

i
Pika elrtind”
[PAibs PAA sks x
|Gatevas < hades»

o|o4
"A
i

(i ae

my + silyl

| i 4 : he , VA y + oi agree
, 1, 2a er a ' Lh A Mortam

‘tat
Marshal.

‘

ay
Post
Wk =—T Tee Terai
0 Nezasaal A, ecsael ese Sc
| APE ]
. 1 2 s a4\ai6 7 s . w 1/19 1 “
1 Gort Lee boaig de S Za x Aline
LMT ZaagzilZ il
¥/ 8 | eo ae AP, Leth ant Berane!
‘ hak AWA
aad | BAe elZ yaaa
Bi. tel TPA 3 | tu t Lee | |/
mls | Waste 2lal, :
aa | RZ Vi Ltzant— heelaad
| dl CON Oi, cpr rete 50 |e Merch scr P= ae a
Re iS Zee esl / | A
11) | et eeepppeeeemnntsy | / \ ;
; Ey Rae RAZ
ES LLL NZ | hy A
eu wth Lather \L6\F Mose net— belin on
Cen LA | Bes atrinend \A\Z /
re yy a Z| A Ney ‘
ar aton Zecdard Wblf SJ
Kiel Larrare?- Lud \te\| £\
pl Obl Li Laced [UVAl l orea YRS", :
Bor Zhe || 7 af; Eh
oie | | j Tgie < VG \ E z
eee gee Za Z
Te a || Behl AM L\, | AreanX Loe lan of
yp | Berbct— 12s i 4] 2 fe
i hl Mee NTS “ ¢
TM || Zicteo Van i _ Seria lead
em Lie Phere lS to, ls Bilt.
f= | LirsK Ta
og MU rte? AS’
bed fine 27 it :
= Song. Soc. B i ‘ ea
Bh t fe t
aly Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. = |
sa) 5) Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. Tia
‘ai nee oe “
We : aan f
ul { } ZZ) 7 Auli lL a
sth H ) i Fie ! a.
me i Baly | ————
i] i . ei i s i
i. it a f 7
Wai Bee aay | pm
#### Forrest E. HONEA, Petitioner, v. Monroe BRANNEN, as Sheriff of Polk County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 40703.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 16, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oet. 2, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 185.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
" UT
16 ‘Surenvisons Distnicr No 14 ‘sucer No.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—DUREAU OF THE CENSUS

FOURTEENTH OENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1820—POPULATION nwenanon bietwer Ko. 5 8.4.1 16
Latte . wa oF cmv. oF

Viv Mow paces enaaanon 5014

Enuenaneo wr ME OW MET on or 4 too, Cue

Ue

SFR

ql
[eRRE

Tee

ia reared aR

seh tt ace

Fine Be t

fishers floes

Spies Che

__ Zz
Tate Tiga ticks
- i i -

aria Tice lWarearcion a re
Maen Pale Qh Meo thal | —ikeaw.g ecu a Oneaae
ea |

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Adminstration, not the U.S. Census Bureau,

Visit http://www orchives.gov for more information about publicly availabe records like the one shown here
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY JARAMILLO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10249

D.C. No.

1:18

- cr

- 00014

- LJO

- SKO

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020 * *

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Johnny Jaramillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 120

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for transfer

of a firearm to a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) ; possessi on of an

unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) ; and possession of

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

OCT 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10249

firearm s after suffering a misdemeanor domesti c violence conviction, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm

.

Jaramillo argues that the district court deprived him of constitutionally

effective counsel when it improperly denied his second motion for substitution of

counsel

. W e conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Jaramillo’s motion

. See United States v. Mende z

- Sanche z, 563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th

Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and three

- factor test)

. The record

reflects that the di strict court adequately questioned Jaramillo and appointed

counsel

, and had a sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision. See id

. at

942

- 43. The record further reflects “some level of confli ct” between Jaramillo and

his counsel, but not an “ exten sive, irreconcilable conflict ” that substantially

interfered with th e relationship. See id. at 943 (internal quotations omitted) ; see

also United States v. McKenna , 327 F.3d 830, 844 (9th Cir. 2003) (it is “well

settled” that disagreements over strategic decisions are in sufficient to warrant

substitution of counsel).

AFFIRMED.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. FR ANK REYES, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50049

D.C . No. 3:06-c r-01242-DM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Frank R e y e s a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion for a

se nte nc e re duc tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED FEB 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R e y e s c onte nds tha t he is e ntitle d to a se nte nc e re duc t ion unde r Am e n dm e nt 782 to theSe nte nc ing Guide line s. W e re vie w de novo whe the r a distric t c o urt ha s a uthority to m odify

a se nte nc e unde r se c tion 3582(c )(2). Se e Unite d State s v . Le nie a r, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th C ir. 2009). The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c o nc lude d that R e y e s is ine ligiblefor a

se nte nc e re duc tion be c a

use Am e n dm e nt 782 did not lowe r his a

pplic a b le se nte nc ing ra

nge . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2); Le n ie a r , 574 F.3d at 673-74. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt la c ke d a uthority to re duc e R e y e s’ s se nte nc e , it ha d n o c a

use to c o n side r the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors. Se e Dillon v
. Unite d State s , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Fina lly , R e y e s is not e ntitle d to a n e vide ntia ry he a ring re ga rding thedrug qua

ntitie s attributa

ble to him

be c a u s e tha t issue is not c ogniz a

ble in a se c tion 3582(c )(2) proc e e ding. Se e Dillon , 560 U.S. a t 826 (se c tion 3582(c )(2) doe s not a uthoriz e a “ ple na ry re se nte nc ing proc e e ding” ). AFFIRM E D .

1 6 - 5 0 0 4 9 2
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

               AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


November 6, 1998

Union Pacific Resources Group Inc.
777 Main Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

We are aware that Union Pacific Resources Group Inc. has incorporated by
reference in its Registration Statements No. 333-22655 and No. 333-52605 on Form
S-3 and No. 333-22613 and No. 333-35641 on Form S-8 its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1998, which includes our report dated October 21,
1998 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein.
Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Fort Worth, Texas
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, non-royalty-bearing, revocable license.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For licensing issues, Mr. Paul G. Michaels, Office of Research & Technology Applications, (301) 619-4145. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, non-royalty-bearing, revocable license to United States Patent Application US 15/723,448, filed October 3, 2017, entitled, “Aerosol Concentrating Apparatus for Use with Aerosol Aging Drum,” and Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Application PCT/US2017/016845, filed February 7, 2017, entitled, “Oro-Nasal Inhalation Plethysmography Mask Exposure System,” and Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Application PCT/US2017/016811, filed February 7, 2017, entitled, “Head-Only and/or Whole Body Inhalation Exposure Chamber” to PneumoDose, LLC, having its principal place of business at 112 Lynhaven Drive, Alexandria, VA 22305.

                    Anyone wishing to object to grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see                     **ADDRESSES**                    ).                

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-15787 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
#### Patricia Malone BYNUM v. Christine O’Mary MALONE et al.

No. 50303.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 21, 1977.

Bearden & Bearden, W. E. Bearden, III, Columbus, for appellant.

Threadgill & Smith, Gary L. Geeslin, Columbus, for appellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lowndes County; Lenore L. Prather, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

INZER, SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification

of

PSB Holdings, Inc.

under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date:  August 14, 2009



PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and CEO





SCOTT M. CATTANACH

Scott M. Cattanach

Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2006-25513 Directorate Identifier: 1999-NE-61-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 0.5 $ 42.50 $ 42.50 25 $1,062.50

HPT Stage 1 disk, 

average pro-rated 

cost

$ 0.00 $23,053 $23,053.00 25 $576,325.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $577,388

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### Charles T. BUCHANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-685.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 18, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl V. M. Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*348PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated error and the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT v. REEVES.

No. 36028.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 191 So.2d 307.
#### In re the Marriage of Vincent G. SANTUCCI, Appellant, v. Aldean H. SANTUCCI, Appellee.

No. 73-739.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.