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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1997
<CASH>                                          37,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,990
<INVENTORY>                                    205,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,833
<PP&E>                                         323,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 548,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,850
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       263,446
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   548,664
<SALES>                                        221,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,107
<CGS>                                          158,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,983
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   636
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4624-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]


New Hampshire; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4624-DR), dated October 4, 2021, and 
related determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued December 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this declared disaster is now July 29, 2021, through and 
including August 2, 2021.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02230 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Daniel SUAREZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s)

CASE NO.: 3D17-2073

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Garland ANTHONY Jr. et ux *v.*FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MAGNOLIA et al

5-4524 & 5-4525

431 S. W. 2d 267

Supplemental opinion delivered September 3, 1968

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

Appellants state in their motion for rehearing that notes #86019 and #87602 have been paid from funds handled by the First National Bank of Magnolia, through mistake and without any authority from appellants. The inference is that this was done without the knowledge of the appellants until sometime after the trial of the case.

A re-examination of the record in this case shows that these notes were never offered in evidence, although *1028Bcopies were exhibited with the complaint. While there is an admission on the part of Garland Anthony, Jr. that he executed these notes, appellants are correct that their validity as evidence of an indebtedness by'him was questioned throughout the proceedings and on this appeal. Judgment could not have been rendered in favor of appellants without the introduction of the original notes or an explanation for the failure to do so. *Clark*v. *Shockley,*205 Ark. 507, 169 S. W. 2d 635. This reexamination also reveals that the statement in the original opinion that these notes were included in judgments for interest may not be justified. The record reflects that it was conceded through statements of counsel that these notes related to interest attributable to note #65935. The record is not clear as to the exact manner in which these notes were handled. It is not entirely clear whether the bank loaned money to Garland Anthony, Jr. which was then applied to payment of interest, or whether the notes merely represented accrued interest. Neither is it clear whether one of these notes might represent a part of the $4,500 which Anthony admits having paid on the principal obligation. In any event, liability on the notes was controverted and they were never introduced in evidence. For this reason the decree of the trial court should have denied recovery thereon.

In appellees’ brief it was stated that these notes were not in issue and that they had been previously paid by agreement of the parties during pendency of the action. In a reply brief, appellants appropriately called attention to the fact that this statement is unsupported by the record. The record does reflect that counsel for appellees, during the trial, stated that liability on these notes was still in issue.

Appellants now ask that this amount be credited against the judgment rendered against Garland Anthony, Jr. There is nothing in the record before us to justify this action. It is not clear to us whether the ap*1029plication of funds complained of by Mm was made before or after the rendition of the decree in the lower court.

Rehearing is denied without prejudice to any right appellants might have to apply to the trial court for any relief to which the facts might show them to be entitled on account of newly discovered evidence and without prejudice to any recovery to which appellants might be entitled in a separate action because of matters arising or occurring after the rendition of the decree in the lower court.

Byrd, J., dissents.
# United States Navy

**– Marine Corps**  **Court of Criminal Appeals**

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Darren P. GOODLOE Information Systems Technician (E

- 6 ), U.S. Navy Corps Appellant
No. 201 8002 30 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 8 February 2019

. Military Judge : Captain Aaron C. Rugh, JAGC, USN

. Approved Sentence: Confinement for 12 months, reduction in rank to paygrade E

- 6, and a letter of reprimand

. Sentence adjudged 27 March 2018 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar, San Diego, California , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Gregory Hargis , JAGC, USN. For Appe llee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ Before HUTCHISON, LAWRENCE, and GEIS Appellate Military Judges.United States v. Goodloe , No. 201 8 00 2 3 0

2 PER CURIAM : A fter careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Art icles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
10015 SB, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1347

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# Úradný vestník C 164A/29.

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 164A |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 5729. mája 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 164A

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 5729. mája 2014

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznamy |
| | ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY |
| | Európska centrálna banka |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Predĺženie lehoty na predkladanie prihlášok o vymenovanie za členov Administratívneho revízneho výboru | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznamy

ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY

Európska centrálna banka

2014/C 164A/01

Predĺženie lehoty na predkladanie prihlášok o vymenovanie za členov Administratívneho revízneho výboru

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Prehľad výberových konaní V Ú. v. EÚ C A | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Prehľad výberových konaní V Ú. v. EÚ C A

2

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

V Oznamy

ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY

Európska centrálna banka

| 29.5.2014 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 164/1

---

Predĺženie lehoty na predkladanie prihlášok o vymenovanie za členov Administratívneho revízneho výboru

2014/C 164 A/01

ECB týmto oznamuje, že lehota na predkladanie prihlášok na základe výzvy na vyjadrenie záujmu externých odborníkov o vymenovanie za členov a náhradníkov Administratívneho revízneho výboru Európskej centrálnej banky (Frankfurt nad Mohanom, Nemecko) uverejnenej 1. mája 2014 v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie
   (1) sa predlžuje do 2. júna 2014.

Vo Frankfurte nad Mohanom 23. mája 2014

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ C 133 A, 1.5.2014, s. 1.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 164/2

---

PREHĽAD VÝBEROVÝCH KONANÍ V Ú. V. EÚ C A

2014/C 164 A/02

Pripojený je zoznam Ú. v. EÚ C A, ktoré boli vydané počas tohto roku.

Ak nie je uvedené inak, Ú. v. EÚ vyšli vo všetkých jazykoch.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
EX PARTE Carl D. HOOD

CR-16-0169

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Howard MONTESDEOCA and Carlos Gando, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134997 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. TINA SUMMERS, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 134997 COA: 269824 Genesee CC: 05-081687-CZ HURLEY MEDICAL CE NTER, PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., GARY JOHNSON, CATHY O. BLIGHT, JE RRY S. KRZNARICH, and LINDA BIEDRZYCKI, Defendants-Appellees,

and

MARCIA E. PERRY, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s0205 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 8, 2008

Clerk
Torris Bernard HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3442

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 1, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jaymond K. FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2769

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Howard Glaser, Appellant, v Pips Catering Corp., Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 634]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), dated September 23, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding two defendants to the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Well after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations the plaintiff moved for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding two defendants to the action. We affirm the Supreme Court’s denial of the motion, since the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that the *518proposed additional defendants were united in interest with the original defendant, so as to apply the relation-back doctrine *(see*CPLR 203 [b]; *Moller v Taliuaga,*255 AD2d 563 [1998]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Michael CLARKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3749

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando RETES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10275

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Monique KMley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Erica Choi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

*547Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Orlando Retes-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 21-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Retes-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it imposed a term of supervised release. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Retes-Lopez’s argument against the term of supervised release. Moreover, the district court’s reasons for imposing the term of supervised release are apparent from the record. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[Ajdequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”).

Retes-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Retes-Lopez’s criminal history and the need for deterrence. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the term of supervised release as an added measure of deterrence and protection. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; *United States v. Valdavinos-Torres,*704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### ***Exhibit 24.1***

 

 
| STATE OF TEXAS   | § |   |
|------------------|--------|--------|
| COUNTY OF DALLAS | § |   |

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

Know all men by thesepresents, that I, WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART INC.,a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint TILMAN J. FALGOUT, III and MARKD. SLUSSER my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power ofsubstitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to therequirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report onForm 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and NationalAssociation of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto andother documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in mystead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report,incorporating such changes as said attorney-in-fact deems appropriate, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute orsubstitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

In witness whereof, I havehereunto set my hand and seal this 5th day of July, 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/  William H. Henderson |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | WILLIAM  H. HENDERSON     |

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

 

Before me this 5thday of July, 2005, came WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, personally known to me, who in mypresence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney andacknowledged the same as his true act and deed.

 

 
|   | /s/  Paula Hodges |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|
|   | NOTARY  PUBLIC    |

 

----
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.25






Director Compensation Summary Term Sheet


During calendar year 2018, each non-employee member of the Board was entitled to receive an aggregate of $130,000 in cash and restricted stock.  The cash portion of the compensation was paid quarterly in $10,000 increments.  The remainder of such compensation was paid in restricted shares of the Company’s Class A common stock, and vested on December 31, 2018 to individuals who were on the Board on December 31, 2018.


In addition to the foregoing, for 2018 each non-employee director was entitled to receive $1,500 for each Board or committee meeting attended.  Further, the Chairman of each of the Executive Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and the Compensation Committee was paid an additional retainer of $2,500 per quarter.  The Chairman of the Audit Committee was paid a retainer of $3,000 per quarter. In addition to the amounts set forth above, the Chairman of the Board was entitled to receive (i) a retainer of $100,000, payable quarterly in restricted shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock pursuant to the terms of the Crawford & Company Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.


During calendar year 2019, each non-employee member of the Board is entitled to receive an aggregate of $140,000 in cash and restricted stock.  The cash portion of the compensation will be paid quarterly in $12,500 increments.  The remainder of such compensation will be paid in restricted shares of the Company’s Class A common stock, and will vest on December 31, 2019 to individuals who are on the Board on December 31, 2019.


In addition to the foregoing, for 2019 each non-employee director is entitled to receive $1,500 for each Board or committee meeting attended.  Further, the Chairman of each of the Executive Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and the Compensation Committee is paid an additional retainer of $2,500 per quarter.  The Chairman of the Audit Committee is paid a retainer of $4,250 per quarter. In addition to the amounts set forth above, the Chairman of the Board is entitled to receive a retainer of $100,000, payable quarterly in restricted shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock pursuant to the terms of the Crawford & Company Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.
# Phantom2 Vision+ Specifications

Aircraft Supported Battery DJI 5200mAh LiPo Battery
Weight (Battery & Propellers Included) 1242g
Hover Accuracy (Ready To Fly) Vertical: 0.8m; Horizontal: 2.5m
Max Yaw Angular Velocity 200°/s
Max Tiltable Angle 35°
Max Ascent / Descent Speed Ascent: 6m/s; Descent: 2m/s
Max Flight Speed 15m/s (Not Recommended)
Diagonal Motor

- Motor Distance 350mm



### Gimbal Working Current Static : 750mA; Dynamic : 900mA
Control Accuracy ±0.03°
Controllable Range Pitch :

- 90°

- 0°
Maximum Angular Speed Pitch : 90°/s



### Camera Operating Environment Temperature 0 °C

- 40 °C

Sensor Size 1/2.3"

Effective Pixels 14 Megapixels

Resolution 4384×3288
HD Recording

# Phantom2 Vision+ Specifications

1080p30 & 720p
Recording FOV 110° / 85°



### Remote Control Operating Frequency 5.728 GHz

- 5.85 GHz
Communication Distance (Open Area) CE Compliance: 400m; FCC Compliance: 800m
Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER)

- 93dBm

Transmitter Power CE Compliance: 25mW; FCC Compliance: 100mW
Working Voltage 120 mA@3.7V

Built

- In LiPo Battery Working Current/Capacity 3.7V, 2000mAh



### Range Extender Operating Frequency 2412

- 2462MHz
Communication Distance (Open Area) 500

- 700m

Transmitter Power 20dBm
Power Consumption 2W



### DJI VISION App System Requirement Of Mobile Device iOS version 6.1 or above/ Android system version 4.0 or above
Mobile Device Support

 iOS recommended: iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPod touch 5 (available but not recommended: iPad 3, iP ad 4, iPad mini)

 Android recommended: Samsung Galaxy S3, S4, Note 2, Note 3 or phones of similar configuration
#### Swank *v.*Edmonds. Brimson *v.*Brimson.

5-1280

Opinion delivered January 20, 1958.

Per Curiam.

The motion for clarification of the judgment is denied. The opinion in this case was delivered June 24, 1957, and petition for rehearing was denied September 30, 1957. See *Brimson*v. *Brimson,*227 Ark. 1045, 304 S. W. 2d 935.

We issued our mandate on October 2, 1957, and it was filed in the trial court. There, some question arose as to our opinion; and, the appellee then filed in the Supreme Court the present “motion to clarify judgment.” When the mandate was filed in the trial court the Supreme Court lost jurisdiction. *American Co.*v. *Wheeler,*183 Ark. 550, 36 S. W. 2d 965.
Ronnie Maurice NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.