alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Karoley *v.*Reid.

5-1076

295 S. W. 2d 767

Opinion delivered November 12, 1956.

[Rehearing denied December 17, 1956.]

*B. W. Thomas*and *Richard W. Hobbs,*for appellant.

*Bailey, Warren*& *Bullion,*for appellee.

Paul Ward, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from an Order by the Pulaski Chancery Court, First Division, refusing to modify or change its former decree.

These same parties and subject matter were before this court in the case of *Karoley*v. *Reid,*223 Ark. 737, 269 S. W. 2d 322. Since all of the factual background is set forth in that case it will suffice here to make only a brief outline statement.

In the former opinion we held that the contract between the parties hereto (which contract is set out in full in that opinion) was valid and remanded the ease *960for further proceedings. In the original complaint Mrs. Karoley alleged that there was $3,000 due in back payments under the terms of the contract. Upon remand the case was retried upon the original complaint except that it was amended to show that there was $8,500 due on back payments.

Upon remand a hearing was held before the original chancellor. At the conclusion of this hearing on May 27, 1955 judgment was rendered in favor of appellant in the amount prayed for. This judgment, which appears in the record, contains, among other things, this finding by the chancellor; “that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff (appellant here) should be granted.” Following the above, in the mandatory portion, the court gave appellant judgment for $8,500 together with interest thereon.

On September 12, 1955 appellant filed a motion before the chancellor who succeeded the original chancellor to reform the judgment entered on May 27th, in which motion she sought to have a judgment for specific performance. This motion was overruled on March 6, 1956 and appellant prosecutes this appeal.

It is our conclusion that the chancellor was correct in overruling appellant’s motion to reform the judgment rendered on May 27, 1955. We have examined the complaint referred to above and it shows conclusively not to be a suit for specific performance, but only a suit to recover the back payments ,under the contract. The only statement which in any way referred to specific performance is in the prayer which reads as follows:

> “Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the defendant be required to pay to the plaintiff any and all monies due pursuant to the terms of said contract and that the terms of said contract be, in all things, enforced specifically by this court; for costs and all proper relief.”

Therefore the body of the complaint did not state a cause of action for specific performance, and the prayer did not supply the deficiency. In the case of *Hancock*v. *Simmons,*223 Ark. 285 (at page 286), 265 S. W. 2d 537, we quoted with approval from a former decision of *961this court the following: “We have held that the statement of facts in a complaint or cross-complaint, and not the prayer for relief, constitutes the cause of action.”

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999, AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE
NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          57,575
<SECURITIES>                                   218,620
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               321,638
<PP&E>                                          87,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 841,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,344
<BONDS>                                        287,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                     418,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   841,579
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,247
<CGS>                                           10,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,986
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,766
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
Fw: MACT floor spreadsheets - 2 of 2 

 RobertJ Wayland 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 11/07/2012 11:33 AM 

 Cc: Bill Maxwell 

 

Set 2 of 2. 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/07/2012 11:32 AM 

----- 

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/07/2012 09:51 AM 

Subject: MACT floor spreadsheets - 2 of 2 

UPL_Pet_Coke_SO2_110612.xlsm 

 UPL_Coal_SO2_110612.xlsm 

UPL_Hg_Lignite_110612.xlsx 

UPL_Oil_US__fPM_PortEverglades_110612.xlsx 

UPL_Pet_Coke_fPM_110612.xlsm 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 
Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00333**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  00333\00333_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 00333\00333_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

00333\Certification Statement_00333.pdf Plant certification statement x 00333\00333_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00333\00333_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Form of Offer Letter



 Exhibit 10.23 
 

 
 David L. Calhoun 
 Chairman & Chief Executive Officer 
 February 27,
2009                                
 Mr. Itzhak Fisher 
 The Nielsen Company 
 770 Broadway 
 New York, New York 10003 
 Dear Itzhak: 
 This letter confirms your current terms of
employment with The Nielsen Company. As the head of our Global Product Leadership organization, you report directly to me. You are responsible for guiding the strategy, development and delivery of all Nielsen product solutions to the global
marketplace. You also have overall responsibility for our Online, Telecom, IAG, Claritas and Entertainment businesses as well as Global Measurement Science. You are based in our New York City office. 
 Your annualized base salary is $625,000, payable in bi-weekly installments of $24,038.46. Your base salary will be reviewed annually along with other
company executives. Your 2009 annual incentive plan opportunity is $600,000 which is payable in accordance with the terms of that plan. Four weeks of annual vacation are provided. 
 As a full-time employee, you are eligible to participate in the company’s 401(k) and deferred compensation plans and the comprehensive benefits
program including our medical, dental, group life and long-term disability plans. We also provide you with the following executive perquisites: 
  

	 	1.	annual car allowance of $15,600, payable bi-weekly; 

  

	 	2.	annual financial planning and tax assistance of up to $15,000; and 

  

	 	3.	annual executive physical assistance of up to $2,500. 

 These executive
perquisites will be grossed-up for income taxes on an annual basis. 







 All amounts payable to you by the company will be subject to withholding for taxes in accordance with the
normal payroll practices of the company. Your employment is on an “at-will” basis. This letter supersedes all prior letters covering the subject matter referred to above. 
 Itzhak, I look forward to working with you. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ David L. Calhoun
	David L. Calhoun


  
  

	
	Agreed:
	
	/s/ Itzhak Fisher
	Itzhak Fisher
Andrew Steckel/RS/USEPAIUS@EPA, 

%~- 

Andy 

I'm working on the final and hopefully it will be completed in the next few weeks. I will send you a copy 

when it is complete. The ECFO DCP does not cover state owned land. 

Andrew Trouette 

Natural Resource Specialist 

Bureau of Land Management 

El Centro Field Office 

1661 S. 4th Street 

El Centro, CA 92243 

(760) 337- 4456 

(760) 337- 4490 Fax 

CC 

Subject Re: Draft 2010 Dust Plan ECFO 

~ndrew - Thanks again for sending. Two follow-up questions: 

1 - You labled this document draft. Any chance you can also easily find and send the currently applicable 

DC P? 

2 - It looks like this does not cover activity on State-owned land in Imperial, such as the Ocotillo Wells 

OHV park. Is that correct? 

Thanks. - Andy 

From: 

To: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Andrew-Trouette@blrn.gov 

Andrew Steckel/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

05/21/2010 04:33 PM 

Draft 201 0 Dust Plan ECFO 

Andrew 

Give me a call if you have questions. 

Andrew Trouette 

Natural Resource Specialist 

Bureau of Land Management 

El Centro Field Office 

1661 S. 4th Street 

El Centro, CA 92243 

(760) 337- 4456 

(760) 337- 4490 Fax[attachment "Draft Dust Control Plan 2010.docx" deleted by Andrew 

Steckel/R9/USEPAlUS]
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1017 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to install permanent fencing around 

the United States Capitol, any of the Capitol Buildings, or any portion 

of the Capitol Grounds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2021 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to install permanent 

fencing around the United States Capitol, any of the 

Capitol Buildings, or any portion of the Capitol Grounds. 

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 ‘‘No Fencing at the 

5 United States Capitol Complex Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR PERMANENT 

7 FENCING AROUND UNITED STATES CAPITOL. 

8 No Federal funds may be used to install permanent 

9 fencing around— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1017 IH

1 (1) the perimeter of any of the Capitol Build2 ings described in section 5101 of title 40, United 

3 States Code; or 

4 (2) the perimeter of the United States Capitol 

5 Grounds, or any portion thereof, described in section 

6 5102 of such title. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Bryan J. PIKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-10 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 14 of 14
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE0395 4

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
exhibit10-40.htm


    
      Exhibit
10.40


      


      


      January
14, 2009

      


      Amjad
Huda

      Chief
Financial Officer

      WaferGen
Bio-systems, Inc.

      


      Re:           Salary
Adjustment

      


      Dear
Amjad:

      


      Per our
agreement on November 1, 2008, your base salary was reduced from $5,048 per week
($262,500 annualized) to $4,290 per week, effective November 1,
2008.  Please sign below to confirm your agreement to these salary
adjustments.

      


      WaferGen
Bio-Systems, Inc. (“WaferGen”) will increase your base salary to the rate of
$262,500 per year in the event it (a) raises $5 million in gross proceeds from
the sale of its securities in one or more financings on or prior to March 30,
2009, excluding any gross proceeds received in connection with any financings
completed by its subsidiary, WaferGen Biosystems (M) Sd. Bhd., a Malaysian
corporation; or (b) raises after March 30, 2009 funds sufficient to finance
WaferGen’s operations at its then-current burn rate for an additional nine
months after the closing of such financing, as reasonably determined by the
compensation committee of the board of directors of WaferGen.  Such
salary increase would be documented in a written agreement to be signed by the
Company and you.

      


      All other
terms of your Executive Employment Agreement dated May 31, 2007 will remain in
full force and effect, including the severance provisions in Section
10.  In the event you become eligible for severance under Section 10
of your Executive Employment Agreement, your severance will be calculated based
on a salary rate of $262,500 per year.  You acknowledge and agree that
you are waiving any right you may have to terminate your employment for “Good
Reason” under Section 10(e) of your Executive Employment Agreement with respect
to this one-time salary reduction as described above.

      


      We
appreciate your continuing support and contributions to WaferGen during these
challenging times for our industry.

      


                                                              Very truly
yours,

      


                                                              /s/ Alnoor
Shivji


                                                              Alnoor
Shivji

      


      ACCEPTED
AND AGREED:

      


      Dated:  January
16,
2009                                                 /s/ Amjad Huda

                                                              Amjad
Huda
Kevin MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY RERERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,345
<INVENTORY>                                     31,410
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,517
<PP&E>                                          96,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,224
<BONDS>                                         71,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,164
<SALES>                                        311,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               311,967
<CGS>                                          256,285
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  283,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,401
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,613
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (762)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,851
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.81
        


</TABLE>
Hasson WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4597

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Army National Guard

W91XXX Contracting Chart by State

Contract # State Contract # State

W901UZ ND W912L5 DE

W911YN FL W912L6 OK

W911YP UT W912L7 TN

W911YU GU W912L8 WV

W91242 NC W912L9 IN

W91243 NE W912LA CA

W9124V MT W912LC CO

W9124X NV W912LD RI

W9127P VI W912LM MN

W9127Q MS W912LN VT

W912J2 WI W912LP IA

W912J3 NM W912LQ VA

W912J6 HI W912LR PR

W912J7 ID W912MM SD

W912JA AL W912NR LA

W912JB MI W912NS MO

W912JC KS W912PQ NY

W912JD ME W912QG SC

W912JF AR W912R1 DC

W912JM GA W912SV MA

W912JV OR W912TF NH

W912K3 WA W9133L NGB

W912K6 MD W9133N NGB

W912KC PA W9133P NGB

W912KN NJ W91364 OH

W912KZ KY W91SMC IL

W912L1 TX W91ZRS CT

W912L2 AZ W91ZRU AK

W912L3 WY W90FYQ MI (Selfridge - ANG)

Current as of 23 Mar 09 ‐ Provided by NGB/JA‐FOIA
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 35
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 36
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 37
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 38
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 39
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 40
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 41
Theron H. WORTH, et al., Petitioners, v. The ESTATE OF Idelle STERN, etc., et al., Respondents.

Nos. 3D17-907 3D17-905 & 3D17-903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 13, 2018

Wintter & Associates, P.A., and Christopher Q. Wintter and Max G. Soren (Hollywood), for petitioners.

Stok Folk + Kon, and Robert A. Stok and Joshua R. Kon, for respondents.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Our certiorari review of the trial court's order granting Respondents' motion for leave to file a claim for punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court applied the correct law. *TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky*, 194 So.3d 516, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). While we might have concerns regarding the sufficiency of the evidence proffered by Respondents as to the alleged intentional misconduct or gross negligence of Petitioners, on this record we are unable to conclude that the trial court, in adjudicating Respondents' motion for punitive damages, failed to apply the correct law, i.e., the procedural standards set forth in section 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.

Petitions denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

NAOMI STURGILL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-607

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. 

Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 27)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on April 26, 2021, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 27). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (Doc. 24) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 406(b) is GRANTED;
2 

3. Specifically, counsel is AWARDED a net fee of $4,038.40, for the reasons

set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27);1 and

4. This case shall remain CLOSED upon the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

1 The Report and Recommendation calculates the amount of attorney fees, based on the gross fee 

($6,375.40) minus the offset ($2,337.00), as $4,038.00. This amount mistakenly omits $0.40 

from the total. To be precise, this Court calculates the awarded fee as $4,038.40. 

5/19/2021 s/Timothy S. Black
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Christine Larson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PDL
BioPharma, Inc., certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of PDL BioPharma, Inc.; and

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2009                                                       
|                                                                        
|/s/ Christine Larson                                                    
|Christine Larson                                                        
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Marcel D. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*