alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00720-CR

Fabian Jermerle CYPHERS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR4028

Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 10, 2011

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW IS GRANTED

Appellant Fabian Jermerle Cyphers was indicted for failing to verify registration as a sex 

offender. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Cyphers entered a plea of nolo contendere in exchange for 

five years’ imprisonment. Cyphers’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on community 

supervision for five years. The State thereafter moved to revoke Cyphers’s community 

supervision. Cyphers entered a plea of true to the State’s allegation that he violated the terms of 

his community supervision by failing to report in person to his supervision officer from the 
04-10-00720-CR

- 2 -

months of November 2009 to August 2010. The trial court granted the State’s motion and 

certified Cyphers’s right to appeal the revocation but not his underlying conviction. Cyphers 

filed a timely notice of appeal, and counsel at the Bexar County Appellate Public Defender’s 

Office was appointed to represent him.

Counsel for Cyphers has filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and has concluded that the appeal has no merit and is frivolous. 

Counsel provided Cyphers with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the 

record and file his own brief. Cyphers did not file a pro se brief within the time prescribed. 

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant Cyphers’s appellate counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

1997, no writ). No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Cyphers wishes to seek review of 

this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to do so or file a pro 

se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the 

Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last 

timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that is overruled by this 

court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 

the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### John T. COCKRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 11, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1908.

John S. Berry, Tampa, and J. W. Harrell, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, John Cockrell, is appealing from a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of grand larceny.

Upon a reading of the record on appeal and after a careful consideration of the

214 So.2d — 6 briefs, we find that defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ-, concur.
### IC Burden Analysis Table (1460.04) 1845-0096 v2

**Student A**

**ssistance General Provisions - Non-Title IV Revenue Requirements (90/10)**

**Respondent Type # of Respondents** **# of Responses Hours/Response** **Total Burden Hours**  **Reporting Requirement Cost per**  **Repondent Total Costs** 

**per Respondent**  **Burden by Affected Entity:** Federal Government 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Individuals or Households 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Farms 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 **Sub-total** 0 0 0 $0

**Private Sector** Business or other for-profits 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Not-for profits 1,101 1,101 2 2,202Reporting 0 0 Not-for profits 1,100 1,100 1 1,100Reporting 0 0 **Sub-total** 2,201 2,201 3,302 $0

**State, Local, or Tribal Governments** Public Institutions 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Private Institutions 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 **Sub-total** 0 0 0 0

**Total** 

### 2,201 **2,201 3,302**  **$0**

**CURRENT INVENTORY** Current # of Respondents 2,067 Current # of Responses 2,067 Current Inventory of Hours 3,088 Difference 

### 134 **134 214** 

Document Type Other Available Electronically? Yes Can be submitted Electronically? Yes Percent Reporting Electronically? 100 Obligation to Respond? Required to receive benefit Frequency? Other



### Revised: 12/3/2012 1

### IC Burden Analysis Table (XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title **Af fected**  **Public Reporting** 

**Requirement Av** **ailable**

**Electronically Can be** 

**Submitted Electronically**  **Percent**

**Reporting Electronically** **Electronic**

**Capability Obligation to** 

**Respond # of** 

**Respondents # of** 

**Responses Hrs/Resp**  **Total Hours** 

### 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 

## Total 0 0#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

**CURRENT INVENTORY** Current # of Respondents Current # of Responses Current Inventory

of Hours

**Difference** 0 0 #DIV/0!

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 1

### IC Burden Analysis Table (XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title Instrument Filename Frequency Number of Respondents Cost Per

Respondent Total Cost

Per Respondent 

### $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 **Total Costs** $0

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 2
#### Neva Felker CREECH v. CAPITOL MACK, INC., et al.

No. 53021.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1973.

In re: Neva Felker Creech, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 268 So.2d 695.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in. duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### John Henry HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-772.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LS POWER FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000949486
<NAME> LS POWER FUNDING CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              338,471,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,472,549
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             338,472,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,471,549
<BONDS>                                    332,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               338,472,549
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,414,647
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          19,414,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
MARTIN 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

PO BOX 202067 

17120.2067 

PHON F.: 1717) 787·5075 

FAX <717l705-7021 

78 MAIN 1ST FLOOR 

BRADFORD PA 

PHONE: (8 14) 362-4400 

FAX: (814) 3624405 

I 07 SOUTH STREET 

ROOM 1 

COUDERSPORT. PA 16915 

PHONE:: (814) 274-9769 

FAX: (814) 274-8159 

July 21,2014 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

HARRISBURG 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Petition of Bradford, P A for a waiver from tbe 1 0-enpbmement statute 

Docket OST-DOT-2003-14528 

Dear Secretary Foxx: 

MA.ll:lf<rn' CHAIRMAN, 

FISHiRiiES 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & ENERGY 

POLICY 

CAUCUSES 

TIMBER CAUCUS. COCHAIRMAN 

FIREFIGHTERS & EMERGENCY SERVICES 

CAUCUS, VICE-CHAIRMAN 

SPORTSMEN'S CAUCUS 

OIL AND GAS CAUCUS 

:,~,·· .. ) 

~· ...... :~.". 

I am writing to express my support of Bradford Regional Airport's request for a waiver in the 

EAS (Essential Air Support) Program. Commercial air service is vita] to our region, providing 

support for all aspects of our economy and regional tourism. 

This waiver will continue air service for our county and enable the Bradford Regional Airport to 

move forward in rebuilding relationships with passengers, businesses, organizations and 

residents who choose to utilize the services of the Bradford Regional Airport. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Martin T. Causer 

State Representative 

67th Legislative District 

cc: Thomas C. Frungillo, A.A.E. 

MTC/ktl
#### Randy Louis RICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1045.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 26, 1973.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A. Cowart, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1743 

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to recognize the authority of States 

to regulate oil and gas operations and promote American energy security, 

development, and job creation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2013 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. ENZI, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to recognize the authority 

of States to regulate oil and gas operations and promote 

American energy security, development, and job creation, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protecting States’ 

5 Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

7 REGULATION. 

8 The Mineral Leasing Act is amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1743 IS

1 (1) by redesignating section 44 (30 U.S.C. 181 

2 note) as section 45; and 

3 (2) by inserting after section 43 (30 U.S.C. 

4 226–3) the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 44. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

6 REGULATION. 

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.—In 

8 this section the term ‘hydraulic fracturing’ means the 

9 process by which fracturing fluids (or a fracturing fluid 

10 system) are pumped into an underground geologic forma11 tion at a calculated, predetermined rate and pressure to 

12 generate fractures or cracks in the target formation and, 

13 as a result, increase the permeability of the rock near the 

14 wellbore and improve production of natural gas or oil. 

15 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary of the Interior 

16 shall not enforce any Federal regulation, guidance, or per17 mit requirement regarding hydraulic fracturing, or any 

18 component of hydraulic fracturing, relating to oil, gas, or 

19 geothermal production activities on or under any land in 

20 any State that has regulations, guidance, or permit re21 quirements for hydraulic fracturing. 

22 ‘‘(c) STATE AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall recog23 nize and defer to State regulations, guidance, and permit24 ting for all activities regarding hydraulic fracturing, or 

25 any component of hydraulic fracturing, relating to oil, gas, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1743 IS

1 or geothermal production activities on Federal land re2 gardless of whether the regulations, guidance, and permit3 ting are duplicative, more or less restrictive, have different 

4 requirements, or do not meet Federal regulations, guid5 ance, or permit requirements.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013134EN.01000801.xml

| 14.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 May 2013

2013/C 134/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2973 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,01 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4534 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84410 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5702 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2404 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5330 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,844 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,33 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6998 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1555 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3239 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3450 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3003 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3092 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0689 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5662 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6090 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 442,78 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,7993 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9742 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5615 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 634,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,8890 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,387 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,6380 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,504 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6147 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,7077 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,0113 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2973

JPY

Japanese yen

132,01

DKK

Danish krone

7,4534

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84410

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5702

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2404

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5330

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,844

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,33

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6998

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1555

RON

Romanian leu

4,3239

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3450

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3003

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3092

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0689

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5662

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6090

KRW

South Korean won

1 442,78

ZAR

South African rand

11,7993

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9742

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5615

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 634,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,8890

PHP

Philippine peso

53,387

RUB

Russian rouble

40,6380

THB

Thai baht

38,504

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6147

MXN

Mexican peso

15,7077

INR

Indian rupee

71,0113

---

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

1

Source

---
256 La. 879

#### Glenn M. ROBISON v. Charley N. GARNETT and The Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 50840.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1970.

In re: Charley N. Garnett and the Travelers Insurance Company applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 238 So.2d 58.

Writ refused. The result is correct
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 288

To amend title 5, United States Code, to grant to the widow or widower

of a Federal employee or annuitant whose health insurance coverage

would otherwise terminate because of such employee’s or annuitant’s

death the right to elect the same temporary extension of coverage as

is available to certain former spouses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. MORELLA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to grant to the widow

or widower of a Federal employee or annuitant whose

health insurance coverage would otherwise terminate because of such employee’s or annuitant’s death the right

to elect the same temporary extension of coverage as

is available to certain former spouses.

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

3 That (a) section 8905a(f) of title 5, United States Code,

4 is amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (1)—
2

•HR 288 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub2 paragraph (A);

3 (B) by striking the period at the end of

4 subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

5 (C) by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(C) to any individual whose coverage as the

7 spouse of an employee or former employee would

8 otherwise terminate (without any right to continue

9 coverage under section 8905(b)(2)) as a result of the

10 employee’s or former employee’s death.’’;

11 (2) in paragraph (2)(C) by striking ‘‘or legal

12 separation,’’ and inserting ‘‘legal separation, or

13 spouse’s death,’’; and

14 (3) in paragraph (3)—

15 (A) in subparagraph (A)—

16 (i) by inserting ‘‘, or the death of,’’

17 after ‘‘legal separation from’’; and

18 (ii) by striking ‘‘or legal separation

19 (as the case may be)’’ and inserting ‘‘legal

20 separation, or death (as the case may be)’’;

21 and

22 (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘or

23 legal separation’’ and inserting ‘‘legal separa24 tion, or spouse’s death’’.
3

•HR 288 IH

1 (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall

2 take effect as of the date of the enactment of this Act,

3 but shall not apply with respect to any individual seeking

4 to continue coverage as the survivor of an employee or

5 former employee who died before such effective date.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Henry A. Fischer, as District Attorney of Franklin County, on Behalf of Chiefs of St. Regis Mohawk Tribe of Indians, Petitioner. Michael Checkman, Respondent.

County Court, Franklin County,

October 13, 1953.

*Henry A. Fischer, District Attorney,*for petitioner.

*H. W. Main*for respondent.

*631
      *Arthur B. Hart*for Andrew Bero and others, as Chiefs of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe of Indians.

Lawrence, J.

This is a proceeding* under section 8 of the Indian Law. It is brought by the District Attorney at the instance of the chiefs of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe of Indians. The chiefs seek to remove Michael Checkman from lands located within the Indian reservation, claiming that he is an intruder. (See *People ex rel. Blacksmith*v. *Tracy,*1 Denio 617.)

The facts have been stipulated. Michael Checkman is a white man. His wife, Minnie Grey Checkman, is a St. Regis Mohawk Indian. Both of her parents were members of that tribe.

The wife resides on the St. Regis Indian Reservation in the County of Franklin. The husband, Michael Checkman, lives with her.

The husband justifies his residence on the reservation as being in the right of his wife.

The question is this: Can the white husband of a St. Regis Indian woman live at her home on the Indian Reservation? The answer must be yes.

By the marriage Michael Checkman acquired only the privilege of residing on his wife’s property when she was willing for him to do so. As Judge Brown says in *People ex rel. Cutler*v. *Dibble*(16 N. Y. 203, 213): “ The policy has been to prevent individual citizens from acquiring any title to and from entering on and appropriating their [the Indians’] lands, unless by such means or under such regulations as the government chose to prescribe.”

The point is, however, that Minnie Grey Checkman did not lose any of her rights by such marriage. Section 3 of the Indian Law imposes the marriage and divorce laws of the State upon the Indian Nations. *(Matter of Patterson*v. *Council of Seneca Nation,*245 N. Y. 433, 445.) The married Indian woman thus retains the same right to enjoy her separate property as a white woman under section 51 of the Domestic Relations Law.

Both parties cite *Matter of Herne*(133 Misc. 286) decided by my father in 1928. The judgment in that case was that a Canadian Indian could be removed as an intruder. This opinion, however, infers that the intruder might no longer be classified as such if her grandson had the right of occupancy and wanted her to live with him.

This determination that Michael Checkman is not now an intruder is of course based upon the present situation. If there is a destruction of the marriage tie between him and Minnie *632Grey Checkman, he would be regarded as an intruder subject to removal. *(Matter of Woodin*v. *Seeley,*141 Misc. 207, affd. without opinion 238 App. Div. 766. But see *Matter of Stakel*[Blueye] 281 App. Div. 183.)

Submit order dismissing the application.
#### Theodore YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Allan V. Everard, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James M. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Young was charged with the offense of unlawfully breaking and entering a school building in Broward County, with intent to commit petit larceny. He plead not guilty, was convicted and thereafter on May 26, 1969 was sentenced to the state prison.

Within a short time the usual motion under Criminal Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. was filed by the defendant wherein, under oath, the defendant alleged that the information filed by the county solicitor was not presented under oath of such officer as required by law. Upon denial of such motion for post conviction relief, the defendant has prosecuted his appeal.

If it were true that the information filed had not been properly sworn to, the defendant could not now complain. See Bretti v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 527, and State v. Frazier, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So.2d 630. However, the certified photostatic copy of the information filed with this court reveals that the same was properly executed under oath.

All inmates in state prisons must realize that their discontent does not justify resort to *perjury*in an effort to seek release. The county solicitor of Broward County may wish to consider further the sworn motion of the defendant in the light *745of the law of Florida relating to perjury in judicial proceedings.

No error is demonstrated and we affirm.

REED and OWEN, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.