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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-28-2000
<CASH>                                     148,537,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,120,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                   969,020
<INVENTORY>                                 53,395,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           254,195,338
<PP&E>                                     127,870,820
<DEPRECIATION>                              56,947,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             368,884,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,630,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       441,771
<OTHER-SE>                                 325,936,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               368,884,899
<SALES>                                    119,604,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           119,604,132
<CGS>                                       87,376,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               87,376,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            28,760,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (4,271,441)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,738,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,170,118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,568,198
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 39511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center 
Improvements Project Committee will conduct an open meeting and will 
solicit public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 18, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(737) 800-4060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, September 
18, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert 
Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 3651 S. 
IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the 
website: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The committee will be discussing various issues related to the 
Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.

    Dated: August 1, 2018.
Otis Simpson,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2018-17012 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2012275EN.01000202.xml

| 12.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6455 — SCA/Georgia-Pacific Europe)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 275/04

On 5 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6455. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6455. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1057

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Russell Neal Clark, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 27, 1998

 Filed: December 3, 1998 

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Russell Neal Clark was previously sentenced to a total of sixty months

imprisonment and three years supervised release for drug and firearm offenses. While

he was serving his supervised release, he admitted violating various supervised-release

conditions. The district court then revoked Clark’s supervised release and sentenced 1

him to nine months imprisonment and two additional years supervised release. Clark
Based upon the parties’ written stipulation, the district court attributed 65.07

2

grams of cocaine base to Clark at his original sentencing in 1993. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A) (providing for maximum term of life imprisonment for offenses

involving 50 grams or more of mixture or substance containing cocaine base); 18

U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) (unless otherwise specified in section defining it, offense is Class

A felony if maximum penalty is life imprisonment).

-2-

appeals, arguing that the district court was not authorized to impose the additional

supervised release. We affirm.

When a district court revokes supervised release and sentences the defendant to

imprisonment that is “less than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized under

[18 U.S.C. § 3583] (e)(3), the court may include a requirement that the defendant be

placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). In

this case, Clark was subject to a prison term of up to five years upon revocation of his

supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to five years

imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release if offense that resulted in term of

supervised release is Class A felony). Because the nine-month prison sentence Clark 2

received was less than the maximum authorized, the district court was entitled to

impose additional supervised release so long as the imprisonment plus additional

supervised release did not exceed Clark’s original term of supervised release. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(h); United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 1996) (original

term of supervised release caps maximum period of time defendant&s freedom can be

restrained upon revocation of supervised release). The total revocation sentence did

not exceed Clark&s original three-year term of supervised release, and his argument on

appeal thus fails. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.
-3-

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1965 - 1997

           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2

1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4

\r Revised.
#### Talbott Stuart DENNY, Sr., Appellant, v. Margaret Jo DENNY, Appellee.

No. 73-1083.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2011281EN.01001801.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/18

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 September 2011

2011/C 281/07

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3430 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 102,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4421 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87235 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3127 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2195 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8855 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,870 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 291,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5130 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3115 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4797 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3838 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3856 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4759 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7344 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7515 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 565,79 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2905 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5803 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4870 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 184,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3010 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,564 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,3800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,526 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5666 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8894 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,3880 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3430

JPY

Japanese yen

102,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4421

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87235

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3127

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2195

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8855

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,870

HUF

Hungarian forint

291,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5130

RON

Romanian leu

4,3115

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4797

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3838

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3856

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4759

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7344

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7515

KRW

South Korean won

1 565,79

ZAR

South African rand

11,2905

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5803

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4870

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 184,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3010

PHP

Philippine peso

58,564

RUB

Russian rouble

43,3800

THB

Thai baht

41,526

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5666

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8894

INR

Indian rupee

66,3880

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Edwin LANG, Petitioner, v. Selma LANG, Respondent.

No. 44270.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 9, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 11.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2012223EN.01000101.xml

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 July 2012

2012/C 223/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2260 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 95,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78280 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,4505 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2010 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3990 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,505 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 284,81 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1506 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6230 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2317 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,1790 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2356 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5107 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5353 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5336 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 404,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,1680 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8283 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5260 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 622,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,8766 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,485 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,6880 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,729 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4806 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5217 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,0740 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2260

JPY

Japanese yen

95,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4384

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78280

SEK

Swedish krona

8,4505

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2010

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3990

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,505

HUF

Hungarian forint

284,81

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1506

RON

Romanian leu

4,6230

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2317

AUD

Australian dollar

1,1790

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2356

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5107

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5353

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5336

KRW

South Korean won

1 404,59

ZAR

South African rand

10,1680

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8283

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5260

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 622,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,8766

PHP

Philippine peso

51,485

RUB

Russian rouble

39,6880

THB

Thai baht

38,729

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4806

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5217

INR

Indian rupee

68,0740

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1994 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the availability of 

breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under the TRICARE program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the 

availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under the TRICARE program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘TRICARE Moms Im5 provement Act of 2014’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1994 IS

1 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT, SUP2 PLIES, AND COUNSELING UNDER THE 

3 TRICARE PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1079(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(18) Breastfeeding support, supplies (includ8 ing breast pumps and associated equipment), and 

9 counseling shall be provided as appropriate during 

10 pregnancy and the postpartum period.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6313

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUALBERTO GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-90-115, CA-97-311-R) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gualberto Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Garcia , Nos. CR-90-115; CA97-311-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### COPPEDGE TERMINAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and University Country Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. William C. HILL, Appellee.

No. N-95.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellants.

John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Hill instituted this action in ejectment and recovered a judgment against defendants. By this appeal defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to submit the question of plaintiff’s title to the jury and that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the question of estoppel.

The extensive record in this case reflects a material difference of opinion between the respective surveyors for plaintiff and defendants. Each of the surveyors was qualified, and since their testimony was in conflict, the question was a proper one for consideration by the jury. The evidence as a whole fails to support defendants’ theory on this appeal as to the question of estoppel. Furthermore, defendants failed to plead in accordance with *744the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.110(d), 30 F.S.A., the affirmative defense of estoppel, and under these circumstances we hold that the trial judge was not in error in refusing to grant defendants’ requested instruction on the doctrine of estoppel. Our review of this record reflects that the issues were joined, the case fairly tried, and the verdict of the jury is supported by competent substantial evidence. It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
# C_2011324EN.01000102.xml

| 9.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6261 — North Sea Group/Argos Groep/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 324/02

On 27 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6261. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6261. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2301

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Gerald Porter, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 11, 2000 Filed: January 20, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. GeraldPorter appeals his drug-related convictions and sentence. Porter contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdicts. We disagree. The record contains substantial evidence on which the jury reasonably could have found Porter guilty of the charges. We also reject Porter's argument about his sentence. Because Porter was properly sentenced as a career offender, an enhancement for obstruction of justice could not

and was not added to Porter's offense level. We thus affirm Porter's convictions and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### Appendix	B

Maintenance	Record

Page	____	of	____

UAS	NUMBER: SEPTEMBER	2015

DATE DESCRIPTION CORRECTIVE	ACTION /

DATE NAME/INITIALS

1 Signature	indicates	UAS	has	been	deemed	airworthy,	and	te st	flight	has	been	performed

. 2 Monthly	Inspection	to	be	performed	on	the	last	day	of	the month ;	can	be	performed	up	to	three	days	in advance .	Aircraft	may	NOT	return	for	operations

until inspection is	completed	and test	flight has	been	performed

.
#### JUPITER PLANTATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. Bill D. JENKINS et al., Appellees.

No. 72-710.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 4, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.