alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

D8u Mrt Att8atlonl Mr. ltal 

opinionR0.04281 

Rot uontultr 
808tbti 3 Or th8 &8t (Idin th0 tM wiiGtr l 8 

"8TO2Y kind Of 18@88, 8artditiOad 8Ob8 l OEt?88t (IO.& Of 

tTU8t, .hrtt@l Wt0;r&a, wU8t ?#8ipt, ?,88W&B Ot 

tftlo, ot othe? W.r;ttOtI itttfrU88nt Oi tit8W.r kid QT 

.hTaOtm WhOFOb 

18 l OU< t0 be 1 

Ul intWO8t, Oth8? th8ll d8OlUtO title, 

Old O? &+8Zl &II l & 3tW t8hiOlO ti80 

my li8a l rut& ot &on by bB8titUtiOll Qb duto.m 

k8tloIi ;Lc Of tho lut 4Ofi.t~~ th0 tm l COr titimtO Of ?itlO' 8jld prod608 iO? tho l OBtUb t8 Of 8tloh 

l ortliloat~. kOtiOIl a ill it8 UltkOty rU48 U tOlbW8t 

-0 tam Wartl?loato oi Tltlo' nomnn b 

wrlttm &Hiraa~~~t uhleh ry bo 18wd 

by Md UBd88 th8 l tltbO?it~'Of th8 D8 

a6167 

ur4 whloh muat glto thr follomdn8 da #r *0& 

With 8UOh Otha tit8 &.I th0 ~JU?kWlt 84 X0” 

Qoir. tMI tin8 to tlwt 

‘(a) -0 Maa Uid a&O88 ti th0 prtrOha8OX 

Md rOllOr at tir8t a0 01 t?-rim.8 urd 

tun8f8ru 8t 84 .Ubr~Uefft 8alO. 

1&O-80 Plato8 OUTtp qt+atr,of 188UuIO0, 
. 

. 

. . 

Ronmablo Hemor Wr?lmea, 

EelthW fb.tiapI 3 LOS 808thh y Of tiUi8 fill 

@? 8&U w t8fGWZie8 t0 %iW QT WPt$aeO8 &WI QQ 

tho tiPOr, rabior, gut8 oz 8000880r108 o f l ut#abllu. 

mo laE&ua&o of &rtlon 1 how?a d180108~8 the uadc 

kkabl8 intOt& Qo th0 

tOl' tho 4i801o8m8 in P 

.d of the iO&i8btU?O to yrot140 

he bOFtiii8&tr of fitlo oi 8ay 8114 

the metor tohlolr tlraa, radio, put1 

it 18 WidMt thd the LO~i8iatU?O~iEb 

08 *%'liOai Qbl th. lLOtW VdllOIOa liM8 ' 

W 0btt.l WtmC;r8 88Omed by ti?U, ?ad108, parrtr OT 

l 00088OZ108, l VidUltu OW#idOrin~ 8UOh 11Ui8 OB IOOO88- 

‘OXi a8 l OlW~@Ilt part8 Of the .tiOlO. mi8 %llteBtiOB 18 

d80 (Lm#8d b 

tionOf~lUI&$ L 

rdorutoe to the fir& olawe~of th8 .a~ 

407, wblrh readr aa iollmt 

wt ACT to 

tifi@8$&8 Of tit i” 

mid0 fo, th8 188Uan00 at l Or0 UtUillf$ EDtOP V0&%0108 M4 

their pk l . .* 

ml0 tt 58 88iblO th8t OOIlftdon dght ?.8tit 

iB l oD8ldOZfog t&O 8.0 P iOM Of th8 Biiu. i8p8?8t QT 88 

#wO(@tO$ Wlit8, ~Ot.W&OB tho 8OOtiM8 Of th0 are unrteoo4 aa4 rose toeotha the p6QO80 of -8 art boron.8 

r 1 .u ~4 the l Mltirioa 18 itW808~blO that 11m8 ati lro?ttP 

8 OB t&i8 888888Wi88 abwa Ue to b8 b41U484 i8 tho 

ertitloata *S l!i%lo, 

~l-t 18,'tho?ofO?o fha OjdtbiOB Of 8hi8 mUtamt 

8ha8 liuu plaod anti 8a Cir88, PMdiO8, prt8 and l OOo88- 

wiu 8hot1l4 bo iwtah OII th8 bOrtitiUt0 0 Pit10 l 8 ‘%iOM 

oatho wtor.tohiolO", un4a 88OtiOB 4 (6 F qt Lk>U80 Bill 

bQ* 

Tour8 rory tiuly 

ltctlm 

APFROVXC 

OFIEIolt ccu;yITTQ: 

BYt 8. 1. 8.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 31 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM CARPENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DR. F. WARREN BENTON, Director DOC (1976); GARY MAYNARD, Director DOC (1987), Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-6269 (W. District of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CIV-96-1447)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a);-2-

10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This court therefore honors t he parties’ requests and orders the cause submitted without oral argument. William Carpenter, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis , appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favorof numerous individual employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections . Carpenter brought this civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, cla iming that he is entitled to damages because the defendants violated his constitutional rights by forcing him to serve an “excessive” period of incarceration. T he district court concluded that Carpenter’s suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that neither the discovery rule nor the Oklahoma doctrine of fra udulent concealment served to toll the statute of limitations because Carpenter w as aware of all of the “facts” necessary to bring this suit when his sentence expi red in 1989. The district court concluded that Carpenter’s ignorance of the legal b asis, as opposed to the factual predicates, underlying his claim could not serve to toll the running of the limitations period. See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 119-122 (1979) Gatewood v. Railroad Retirement Bd. , 88 F.3d 886, 890 (10th Cir. 1996). Upon de novo review of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendati on, the district court Order, the parties’ briefs and conte ntions, and the entire record on appeal, this court affirms for substantially the re asons set forth in the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation dated May 30, 1997, and t he district court Order-3-

dated July 17, 1997. We further hold that this app eal is frivolous or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) or (ii) for purposes of counting “prior occasions” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
# C_2021490EN.01004201.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)

(Case T-733/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark BANDIT - Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration - Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty of care - No review - Failure to comply with time limits)

(2021/C 490/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 (Case R 730/2020-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum in relation to the right to apply for renewal of the EU word mark BANDIT.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---
Danny POWELL v. Kenya MADISON

2160533

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Stephen G. Kasnet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “report”) of Harbor Global Company Ltd.; 

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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

c) Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: July 31, 2006
J.C.A., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Scott G. Hubbard, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and, Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, EDWARDS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
# C_2021338EN.01002101.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — S. Tous v EUIPO — Zhejiang China-Best Import & Export (Lamp)

(Case T-492/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp - Earlier EU figurative marks representing a teddy bear - Grounds for invalidity - Article 25(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2021/C 338/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: S. Tous, SL (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: D. Gómez Sánchez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zhejiang China-Best Import & Export Co. Ltd (Hangzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2020 (Case R 1553/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between S. Tous and Zhejiang China-Best Import & Export.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders S. Tous, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders S. Tous, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

---
ntcclm (rev. 12/15)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

Big Horn Construction & Reclamation LLC Case No.: 24−42003−mxm7

 Chapter No.: 7

Debtor(s)

NOTICE TO FILE CLAIM

TO THE DEBTOR, CREDITORS AND OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST:

Notice was previously given that an order for the relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code had been entered on

a petition filed by or against the above referenced debtor.

1. 

The original notice states that there were no apparent assets and the creditors should not file proofs of claim.

However, assets have now been recovered from which it appears that payment to creditors may be possible.

Accordingly, January 21, 2025 is fixed as the last day for filing proofs of claim. Governmental units should

refer to 11 USC section 502(b)(9) to determine the last day for filing a proof of claim.

2. 

A creditor must now file a proof of claim within the time limit in order to share in any distribution from the

estate, except as provided in 11 U.S.C Section 501(c). A proof of claim must conform substantially to

Official Form 410. A Proof of Claim form ("Official Form 410") can be filed online at the Bankruptcy

Court's Website: (http://www.txnb.uscourts.gov) or at any bankruptcy clerk's office. It is necessary to file a

claim even if the debtor has scheduled you correctly as a creditor on the lists filed with the Court. If you have

previously filed a proof of claim in this case, this notice does not require you to refile your claim. To receive

acknowledgement of receipt by the clerk, enclose a copy of the claim and an adequate sized self−addressed

stamped envelope.

3. 

Claims must be filed with the:

U.S. Bankruptcy Court 501 W. Tenth Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

4. 

FILE YOUR CLAIM ONLINE

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas now accepts claims in all cases electronically

via the Online Claim Filing System. The Court strongly encourages e−Filing your Proof of Claim.

E−filing is fast, free and does not require a login or password.

To learn more and begin filing your Proof of Claim, please visit our website at:

http://www.txnb.uscourts.gov

CLAIMS ADDRESSED OR SENT TO THE DEBTOR, TRUSTEE, OR UNITED STATES TRUSTEE WILL NOT

BE FILED.

DATED: 10/24/24 FOR THE COURT:

Stephen J Manz, Clerk of Court

by: /s/Chris Tello, Deputy Clerk

Trustee: Marilyn Garner
# C_2020287EN.01003002.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 30 June 2020 — XQ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-291/20)

(2020/C 287/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XQ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Is a strike by an air carrier’s own employees, which is called by a trade union, an extraordinary circumstance for the purpose of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 30 July 2020.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 727 

Designating June 2024 as ‘‘Great Outdoors Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Mr. KING, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. MANCHIN) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating June 2024 as ‘‘Great Outdoors Month’’. 

Whereas hundreds of millions of individuals in the United 

States participate in outdoor recreation annually; 

Whereas Congress enacted the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and 

Economic Impact Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–249; 130 

Stat. 999) to assess and analyze the outdoor recreation 

economy of the United States and the effects attributable 

to the outdoor recreation economy on the overall economy 

of the United States; 

Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, updated 

in November 2023 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis 

of the Department of Commerce, shows that outdoor 

recreation generated $1,100,000,000 in economic output 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 727 ATS 

in 2022, comprising approximately 2 percent of the current-dollar gross domestic product; 

Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account shows 

that, in 2022, the outdoor recreation sector grew 3 times 

faster than the overall economy of the United States, 

while also providing 5,000,000 jobs across the United 

States; 

Whereas the Great American Outdoors Act (Public Law 116– 

152; 134 Stat. 682) provides billions of dollars to help 

eliminate the maintenance backlog on public lands and 

waters and fully funds the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund; 

Whereas regular outdoor recreation is associated with economic growth, positive health outcomes, and better quality of life; 

Whereas outdoor recreation activities at the Federal, State, 

and local levels have seen a recent surge in participation; 

Whereas many outdoor recreation businesses are small businesses that are cornerstones of rural communities, and 

outdoor recreation is part of the national heritage of the 

United States; 

Whereas it is imperative that the United States ensure that 

access to outdoor recreation is available to all its people 

for generations to come; and 

Whereas June 2024 is an appropriate month to designate as 

‘‘Great Outdoors Month’’ to provide an opportunity to 

celebrate the importance of the great outdoors: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 727 ATS 

1 (1) designates June 2024 as ‘‘Great Outdoors 

2 Month’’; and 

3 (2) encourages all individuals in the United 

4 States to responsibly participate in recreation activi5 ties in the great outdoors during June 2024 and 

6 year-round. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 17, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2661

Lower Tribunal No. 84-13722

________________

Danny Costello,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eric William Hendon, Judge.

Danny Costello, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed without prejudice to file a legally sufficient Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion.

2
**FAA REDAC Subcommittee on Environment and Energy**

**Spring 2015 Meeting Agenda**

**Environmental Defense Fund**

**1875 Connecticut Ave NW #600 Washington, DC 20009**

**Remote Participation:**

*Telephone:*

Dial-in number: (877) 336-1839  Conference code: 2230569  (Host Code: 6935)

*Webex:*

· Go to website https://www.connectmeeting.att.com

· Enter meeting number 877-336-1839

· Enter access code 2230569

· Enter user email (ex. clay.reherman@dot.gov)

· Enter user first/last name (ex. Clay, Reherman)

· (next screen)

· Select "Participant" and click submit

· Website will automatically run Webex files and open meeting; host can view documents and chat/raise hand

****
# C_2021329EN.01002302.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-267/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 329/30)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: V. Rytikov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Sergej Arbuzov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Sergej Arbuzov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
CAROLYN AT CLEARWATER, LLC, Appellant, v. GA CLEARWATER, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4724

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Trent Cole ASKEGARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0980

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Colleen FALK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2356

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Danielle R. Rufai, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.