alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00873-CR

Patrick Baca, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 07-783-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In 2008, appellant Patrick Baca pled guilty to drug possession and was given five

years of deferred adjudication community supervision. In 2009, the trial court adjudicated Baca’s

guilt and placed him on “straight probation.” In 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke probation,

alleging that Baca had violated various terms of his community supervision. The trial court held a

hearing and granted the State’s motion, revoking Baca’s probation and sentencing him to five years

imprisonment. Baca’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v.California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d
684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 

Appellant’s attorney sent Baca a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to examine

the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553,

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief, the evidence presented to the trial court, and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Affirmed

Filed: August 4, 2011

Do Not Publish

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edilberto BANEGAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51048 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Edilberto Banegas, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edilberto Banegas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v.*California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Banegas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has. determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

f ~010 ZVZ of thb Qoa8tftutfoa dbo&wu 

ahnil hold or a&lre ES bhr 

th8a oab olril Of$iOb of bmd‘taTV that of ;TuBt10. of Pbaoo, Qoantr 
Honorabie hank B. Lloyd, pig. 2 .~ 

The or.rIoa or cloudy aoml8sIoner being speolally 

wroeptad In thI8'SeotIon tha oaaa stated by you does not oome 

+lthin the prohlbltlon tharaoi. 

Thera 18, howaver, another prohibition against duel, 

.orriae holUIngpredIoeted upan the inoompatIbIlItp or the re- 

~speotire offloem, whathsr suoh orrio oqaa wIthIn the axpro 

p,roh.tbItiqp S$~&aw dr nbt; Who prohIbItIon ot suoh dual orrio. 

holdIng w~th'~bi~ot'to~ino~~tIble offioaa is grounded upon 

the 8oundr8t'publI8 policy and 18 w6l.l entablishad In the daol8Ion8 of thi8 Z&at& See Blenoourt f. Parker, 27 T&x. 558s 

IState T. Btiakaahorr~ 66 Tax. 45.t Thomas f. Absmathy Oounty 

Ltno Indo 

51 8. w. s 

enbutt 6ahool DiettrIat, 290 8. ~W.,l52; 8tato Y. Martin, 

28) 8s 808 aho our OpInlon Wo: Q-2640.whoraIn wo 

abrirrod'upbn tha.authorItW Of 8uoh'doaIlrIOnil that tha 9tl$es8 

of Justloo OS the Peaoo andCountp CORDOI~SIOB~~ wera tneompatible 

InthI8, that the OonrmiasiOne+s~ Court Ia required by law to approro the.aoodunta or JustIoe8 'of tha.Peaoo r0r roe8 in orblndt 

aotions. 

A oe@eful madIng or .tho tiok oradioatlon law,~(E. B. 

lfo. 77,. Qh. 53, PIrat &llad~See~on, &lab Lag181atur8k;oolr-.oon- 

~iinoo8 us that the dutIb8 or the LIventook Sanitary Cotissbn 

mombsra and ot.tho member8 c$ tho Corina18sIoner8t Court ara inoompatlble In thI8, that by Seation 5 of that Aot (anb l laawhera 

therein) the LIre8took ShnItsrJr ~OmmIseIon' Is given broads pow018 

with respoot to the exsrolse of which there Is Imposed upon the 

OommI8sioner8' Court of any oounty afreotod thereby the duty OS 

oomplylng and oooperatlng to the extant of oo.nstru~tIng or supplyIng,all neoeasary faoIlltIe8 for the purpose of dipping oattlo, 

horses, mules, jaok8 and jonnat under the 8upervIeIon of the 

Inspeotors or the Lite8took Sanitary OonnuIssfon, euoh iaaflitiier 

to be furnished at the oxpenw or the County. 

The law thus praaorlbing tha re8paotive dutIe8 of. 

members of the Sanitary CommIs8ion and the County OommIsaloner8 - 

the ona being prImam and paramount, the other being seoondary 

and 8ubordInete~nneoesearIly oreatee an Inoompatlbility that 
. 

, 

. ..-. 

720 

Boaorablo Prank 8. Lloyd, pago 3 

would forbid one por8on holding and l xoroIai.n(& both OmOO8 

at tho 8=. tiS8. 

fntr the80 OOlZ8fdOMtiOll8 ib fOuW8 that yourinquIry 

8hould bo amwere in the drimdir0. 

row8 very bruly,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean LAFROMBOISE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30268

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Brendan Patrick McCarthy, Leif Johnson, Tim Tatarka, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dean LaFromboise, Pro Se

Before: 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 **

Dean LaFromboise appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

LaFromboise first contends that the district court erred by failing to apply Amendment 782 to all the counts of conviction. This contention fails because the court followed the proper procedure. Specifically, the court lowered the base offense level by two, as required by Amendment 782, and correctly calculated an amended Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months. It then reduced the overall sentence to 347 months, within the amended range. The court’s decision to apportion the 73-month reduction to only two of the counts of conviction was not improper. *See generally Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (describing step one the resentencing process under section 3582(c)(2)). To the extent LaFromboise argues that the court failed to explain why it did not grant a greater reduction, the record reflects that the court considered the parties’ arguments and selected a sentence between the low-end sentence requested by LaFrom-boise and the high-end sentence requested by the government. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

LaFromboise next contends that the district court abused its discretion because his age, post-sentencing conduct, and other mitigating factors supported a greater reduction in his sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of LaFromboise’s offenses. *See United*
      *623
      *States v. Dunn,*728 F.3d 1151, 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013).

Finally, LáFromboise argues that the district court erred at his 2006 resentenc-ing hearing in various ways. These contentions are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See Dillon,*560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PROTOCOL
SYSTEMS, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,389
<SECURITIES>                                    11,280
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,915<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       450
<INVENTORY>                                     10,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,752
<PP&E>                                          15,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,232
<SALES>                                         47,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,580
<CGS>                                           24,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,967
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,491
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,476
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,476
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<FN>
<F1>NET OF ALLOWANCE
<F2>THE AMOUNT OF LOSS PROVISION IS INSIGNIFICANT AND HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN OTHER
EXPENSES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Dunia M. PEREZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0676

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Stephen WAMLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2350

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Isaac Isahas WASHINGTON v. STATE

CR-16-0571

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
David KIMBROUGH v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-0358

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GOZZO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida corporation

, Appellant,

v.

ANNE M. ESKER, and CLAY LANE RENTAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 3296

[ October 29, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; G. Joseph Curley , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502005CA011607XXXXMBAA

.

Michael A. Monteverde and Kali Lauren Sinclair of Zinober, Diana & Monteverde, P.A., For t Lauderdale, for appellant.

Steven Ellison of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, West Palm Beach, for appellee Anne M. Esker.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., W ARNER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

ANTOINE M. WOOTEN, 

 Defendant – Appellee, 

 v. 

PRESTON DARNELL ROE, 

 Movant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00356-RLW) 

Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 15, 2009 

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & LIPTON, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, 

Jonathan H. Hambrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Preston Darnell Roe appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to unseal the presentence report of another 

defendant in a closed criminal case. We have reviewed the 

record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs, and we 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United 

States Dep’t of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 12 (1988) 

(holding that a third party must make a showing of a “special 

need” in order to gain access to another individual’s 

presentence report). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [MB Docket No. 22-39; RM-11917; DA 22-87; FR ID 71247]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 4, 2022, concerning a petition for rulemaking filed by Scripps Broadcasting Holdings LLC, licensee of KTVQ(TV), channel 10, Billings, Montana, requesting the substitution of channel 20 for channel 10 in the Table of Allotments. The document contained the incorrect call sign of the licensee. The document also contained an incorrect licensee name.                    

# DATES:

February 15, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647 or                         *Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In FR Doc. 2022-02337, in the                     **Federal Register**                     of February 4, 2022, appearing on page 6473, in the third column, correct the first sentence in the                     **Summary**                     caption to read:                

**SUMMARY**                    : The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Scripps Broadcasting Holdings LLC (Petitioner), the licensee of KTVQ(TV), channel 10, Billings, Montana.                

Dated: February 7, 2022.

Thomas Horan,

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 2022-03069 Filed 2-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene BARRIENTES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10596 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 31, 2017

Jay Stevenson Weimer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John W. Stickels, Esq., Stickels & Associates, P.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*168PER CURIAM: *

Rene Barrientes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Included in the calculation of his offense level was a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and a two-level enhancement for importation of methamphetamine pursuant to § 2Dl.l(b)(5). The district court overruled Barrientes’s objections to the enhancements and sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release.

On appeal, Barrientes argues that the district court erred in imposing the enhancement in § 2Dl.l(b)(l) for possession of a firearm because he personally did not possess a firearm and he had no knowledge that his codefendants possessed a firearm. He also argues that the district court erred in imposing the enhancement in § 2Dl.l(b)(5) for importation of methamphetamine because did not know that the methamphetamine was imported. He concedes that this court has previously rejected both arguments, but respectfully requests that we revisit our precedent.

Barrientes’s arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Aguilera-Zapata,*901 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 1990), and *United States v, Serfass,*684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012), respectively. In *Aguilera-Zapata,*we held that the enhancement in § 2Dl.l(b)(l) applies when a codefendant’s possession of a firearm during the offense was reasonably foreseeable. 901 F.2d at 1215. In *Serfass,*684 F.3d at 552, we held that the enhancement in § 2Dl.l(b)(5) applies when the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine regardless of whether the defendant knew of that importation. Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Reynaldo ACOSTA and Iliana B. Acosta, Appellants, v. TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Nos. 3D16-2855 & 3D17-605

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018. Rehearing Denied May 17, 2018

The Monfiston Firm P.A., and Daniel Monfiston, for appellants.

Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Berard Rockenbach, (West Palm Beach); Gaebe Mullen Antonelli DiMatteo, and Devang Desai, and Elaine D. Walter, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LINDSEY, JJ.

LINDSEY, J.

We find no error with regard to the issues raised on appeal relating to the final judgment entered in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company and, therefore, affirm. Because the order granting Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs from Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta did not establish an amount, it was *883a non-final, non-appealable order that is not ripe for our review. As such, we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees. *See**Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.*, 227 So.3d 735, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[W]e are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees .... because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review." (first citing *Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp.*, 127 So.3d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ); then citing *Mills v. Martinez*, 909 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; and then citing *Chaiken v. Suchman*, 694 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ). "Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130." *Id.* at 737 (quoting *Kling Corp.*, 127 So.3d at 833 ); *see* Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Accordingly, the appeal with respect to attorney's fees is dismissed without prejudice.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
Order filed May 28, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00237-CR

____________

DEVANE BERNARD SALTERS, Appellant

V.

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405TH District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13CR0588

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 12, a 

video.
The clerk of the 405TH District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of 

this court the original of State’s Exhibit 12, a video, on or before June 8, 2015.

The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original 

exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon 

completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s Exhibit 12 to the clerk of 

the 405TH District Court.

PER CURIAM
Rachel WADE, DOC #R67662, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4353

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.