alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ANALOG DEVICES, INC., Appellant

v.
XILINX ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD., XILINX, INC., Appellees

______________________
2022

- 1818

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020

- 01531.

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

In re : XILINX, INC., XILINX ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD., Appellants

______________________
2022

- 1856

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020

- 01531.

______________________ Case: 22-1818 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2022IN RE : X ILINX , INC

. 2

ON MOTION

______________________ Before S TARK , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Upon consideration of Analog Device s , Inc.’s uno pposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2022

- 1 818 , pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and to withdraw from Appeal No. 2022

- 1 856
, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2022

- 1 818 is dismissed. Analog Device s is withdrawn from Appeal No. 2022

- 1856. The revised official caption s and short caption for Appeal No. 2022

- 1856 are reflected in this order. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 2022

- 1 818

. (3) The United States Patent and Trademark Office ( “ PTO ” ) is directed to inform the court within 30 days of the date of filing of this order whether it intends to intervene in Appeal No. 2022

- 1 856

. ( 4 ) If the PTO elects to participate as intervenor, its docketing statement is due within 14 days of the date of filing of its notice of intervention and its brief is due within 40 days of the date of filing of Xilinx, Inc. and Xilinx Asia Pacific P te

. Ltd.’s (collectively, “ Xilinx”) opening brief. Case: 22-1818 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2022IN RE : XILINX , INC

. 3

(5) Xilinx’s opening brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order.

D ECEMBER 12 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court ISSUED AS A MANDATE (AS TO 2022

- 1818 ONLY): December 12, 2022 Case: 22-1818 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2022
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROMAN SCHMAKOV,

Defendant.

 /

No. CR-05-0297 MEJ

SEALING ORDER PURSUANT TO

GENERAL ORDER 54

The following documents in this action are placed under seal and shall not be opened

except by the United States Sentencing Commission for its eyes only and shall not be

transmitted or otherwise opened except by order of this court upon application.

: Presentence Report 

9 Plea Agreement

9 Statement of Reasons

9 

(Other)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2005

 

HON. MARIA-ELENA JAMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-00297-MEJ Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - (-)products_publications(6)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(8)
              - alaska(43)
              - arizona(13)
              - arkansas(3)
              - california(45)
              - colorado(19)
              - connecticut(4)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(7)
              - georgia(6)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(7)
              - idaho(11)
              - illinois(3)
              - indiana(5)
              - iowa(6)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(5)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - michigan(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(6)
              - missouri(4)
              - montana(13)
              - nebraska(4)
              - nevada(14)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(9)
              - new york(4)
              - (-)north carolina(6)
              - north dakota(7)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(8)
              - pennsylvania(7)
              - puerto rico(3)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(3)
              - texas(16)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(25)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(11)
              - wisconsin(6)
              - wyoming(10)

## By Year

publication        May 13, 2005        Generalized geologic map of bedrock lithologies and surficial deposits in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park region, Tennessee and North Carolina

publication        January 1, 2011        Spatial modeling for groundwater arsenic levels in North Carolina

publication        July 9, 2021        Occurrence and distribution of mercury in streams and reservoirs in the Triangle Area of North Carolina, July 2007–June 2009

publication        October 28, 2011        Characterization of stormwater runoff from bridges in North Carolina and the effects of bridge deck runoff on receiving streams

publication        February 28, 2012        Organic compounds assessed in Neuse River water used for public supply near Smithfield, North Carolina, 2002-2005

publication        January 1, 1981        Manual for leveling at gaging stations in North Carolina
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0202 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. SEIDEL PINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until October 29 , 2021, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 15 2021

10/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0202
Alice Avant WILSON v. David AVANT and Larry Avant

2170413

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 26, 2018

Dismissed.
William R. CUMBIE, Sr. a/k/a William R. Cumbie, Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC a/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Betsy A. Cumbie a/k/a Betsy Ann Ellerman, Arrow Financial Services, LLC Assignee of CreditMax, Brevard County Florida Clerk of Court, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MICHAEL BARRY SHOR; NGUESSAN

YAO,

 Defendants,

IVORY COAST, AKA Republic of the

Cote D’Ivoire,

 Petitioner - Appellant.

No. 13-10642

D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00434-RMW-1

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

IVORY COAST, AKA Republic of the

Cote D’Ivoire,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

No. 14-10115

D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00434-RMW-1

FILED

DEC 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MICHAEL BARRY SHOR; NGUESSAN

YAO,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 20, 2015 

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and PARKER,

** Circuit Judges. 

Ivory Coast appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment to the

United States in an ancillary proceeding to adjudicate Ivory Coast’s interest in

$3,923,030 that Defendants Michael Barry Shor and N’Guessan Yao forfeited in a

criminal case. We affirm. 

1. Ivory Coast is not entitled to a constructive trust in the forfeited funds. 

Even when construing the evidence in Ivory Coast’s favor, a reasonable fact finder

could not conclude that Shor deceived Ivory Coast into believing the arms

transaction was lawful. “A state is responsible for any violation of its obligations

under international law resulting from action or inaction by . . . any organ, agency,

** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

-2-
official, employee, or other agent of a government or of any political subdivision,

acting within the scope of authority or under color of such authority.” Restatement

(Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 207 (1987). As the district court found,

Defense Minister Michel Amani N’Guessan (Amani) knew that the arms

transaction was illegal, and he acted under the color of his authority when he

participated in the transaction. Ivory Coast, therefore, cannot establish that it was

deceived into believing that the arms transaction was legal.

2. The in pari delicto doctrine “prevent[s] the return of money voluntarily

paid to a government agent in an illegal transaction.” Kardoh v. United States, 572

F.3d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 2009). Amani participated in the arms transaction, which

he knew to be illegal, and Ivory Coast is vicariously liable for his actions. 

Accordingly, the in pari delicto doctrine bars Ivory Coast from recovering the

money.

3. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1609, does not

prohibit the forfeiture in this case because, among other reasons, Ivory Coast does

not have a property interest in the funds. 

4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ivory Coast’s

request for additional discovery because the discovery sought would not have

altered the grant of summary judgment. 

-3-
AFFIRMED.

-4-
Karen MILANO, Appellant, v. ASSOCIATION OF the GROVES HOMEOWNERS, INC., Gary Sault, Sue Sault and City of Port Orange, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-1060

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anthonee Patterson, :

Appellant :

: No. 1312 C.D. 2016

v. :

:

Kenneth Shelton, Individually, and :

President of the Board of Trustees :

of the General Assembly of the :

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ :

of the Apostolic Faith, Inc. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22 day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the 

emergency application of Anthonee Patterson seeking clarification of this Court’s 

prior decision and order dated November 29, 2017, it appearing that said decision 

erroneously referenced the May 10, 2006 order of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County (trial court) as confirming a previous order by an arbitrator, the 

same is hereby amended to reflect that the trial court’s order confirming the 

arbitrator’s award was duly entered on July 10, 2006, and judgment was entered in 

favor of Patterson by trial court order dated July 20, 2006.

1 Any attempts to enforce 

these orders is more properly directed to the trial court following final disposition 

by this Court, including Shelton’s application for reargument.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

 

1 A similar order was entered by the trial court on October 12, 2006, entering judgment in 

favor of Patterson. Additionally, the final adjudication and decree of the arbitrator was entered as 

an order of the trial court on April 17, 2017. These orders, dated July 10 and 20, 2006, October 

12, 2006, and April 17, 2017, collectively represent the last valid judgments in this case.
Case 3:05-cv-02498-B Document 14 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 54
Visualization of BLS Geospatial Data 

using R/Shiny

Elizabeth Cross

Kenneth Cho

FCSM Research Conference

December 2nd, 2015
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

2
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

3
Can we do this in R - Why R?

 R is an open source software.

Free

Versatile

Functional

Trendy

 FREE!

 And, Yes, it can make maps.

4
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

5
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

6
What is OES?

 OES provides employment and wage estimates for 

 Over 800 occupations

 Over 300 industries 

 More than 375 Metropolitan areas

 34 metropolitan divisions

 All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the 

Virgin Islands

 Non-metropolitan areas.

 Published annually.

7
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

8
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

9
OES maps

10

 OES Maps
Making a Dynamic Tool: 

Using Shiny

 Shiny is a package within R for interactive applications

Works with other packages in R for maps, graphs, tables, 

etc.

Deployed via a server

– Deployment options include a local server or cloud based server

– Users do not require R, the packages, or data to use the 

application
Mapping in R

 ChoroplethR package

Pros: very useful to make a quick state map

Cons: limited interactivity and difficult to incorporate shape files to 

map MSAs

12
Early trials with Leaflet

 Pros: Increased interactivity with maps, Easy compatibility 

with shape files

 Cons: Difficult to change projection

13
Can we add a legend?

 No.

Leaflet had a legend tool, 

but not dynamic.

Joe Cheng, Leaflet 

developer, showed us 

how. Special Thanks!

14
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

15
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

16
Thanks to Everyone!

 Other features added with input from

Jean Fox

David Hiles

Ben Cover

Michael Schwarz

 Resources

Shiny Tutorial at http://shiny.rstudio.com/

SuperZip Example by Rstudio

GitHub

StackOverflow

17
CAN WE DEVELOP A DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA 

USING R?

18
CAN WE DEPLOY OUR DYNAMIC 

MAPPING TOOL FOR OES DATA?

19
Demonstration

20
Contact Information

Elizabeth Cross

(202) 691-5089

Cross.Elizabeth@bls.gov

Economist, OES

Kenneth Cho

(202) 691-6248

Cho.Kenneth@bls.gov

Economist, OCWC
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: FTC’S ADMIN. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00039 PAGE 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAURA D. BERGER (FL Bar No. 11762) 

Federal Trade Commission 

901 Market Street, Suite 570 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

P: (202) 326-2471/F: (415) 848-5184 

lberger@ftc.gov; 

KEVIN H. MORIARTY (DC Bar No. 975904) 

CATHLIN TULLY (NY Bar) 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

P: (202) 326-3644/F: (202) 326-3062 

kmoriarty@ftc.gov; ctully@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

____________________________________ 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) 

 ) Case No. 3:17-cv-00039

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

D-LINK CORPORATION ) 

 ) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE FEDERAL 

and ) TRADE COMMISSION’S 

 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., ) UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF 

corporations, ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

) 

 Defendants. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

 
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: FTC’S ADMIN. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00039 PAGE 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC) filed, pursuant to Civil 

Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(d) and (e), an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 

(“Administrative Motion”) portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

The FTC’s complaint alleges facts in Paragraphs 10, 11, and 25 that the FTC obtained 

during the course of its non-public investigation of D-Link Systems, Inc. (“DLS”). In providing 

this information to the FTC, DLS designated this information as confidential pursuant to Section 

21 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b-2. 

Having considered the FTC’s Administrative Motion, the Declaration of Cathlin Tully in 

Support of the Administrative Motion, and any declaration submitted by DLS in response 

thereto, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11, 79-5(d) and (e), and good cause appearing therefore: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion is: 

 [ ] GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

 [ ] DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

 [ ] GRANTED/DENIED IN PART. 

DATED: __________________ ________________________ 

 . 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20097 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TRON WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-430-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Tron Washington on appeal has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Washington has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 237 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 237

Approving of the sales of defense items to Israel notified to Congress 
                            on May 5, 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2021

 Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Hagerty, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Rubio) submitted the following resolution; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Approving of the sales of defense items to Israel notified to Congress 
                            on May 5, 2021.

Whereas, in the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), Congress 
        reaffirmed that it is the policy of the United States to facilitate the 
        common defense of the United States and friendly countries by entering 
        into international arrangements with those countries through authorized 
        sales of defense items;
Whereas, in the Arms Export Control Act, Congress established that it is ``the 
        sense of the Congress that all such sales be approved only when they are 
        consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United States'';
Whereas section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)) 
        requires that the President transmit to the leaders and relevant 
        committees of Congress certifications for proposed licenses for the 
        export of certain defense items to Israel in the amount of $100,000,000 
        or more;
Whereas, on May 5, 2021, the Department of State transmitted to Congress 
        certifications pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act 
        for exports to Israel of defense items valued in excess of $800,000,000, 
        including munitions and defensive systems; and
Whereas, on January 19, 2021, in testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
        of the Senate, now-Secretary of State Blinken emphasized that the 
        incoming Presidential administration's ``commitment to Israel's security 
        is sacrosanct and this is something that [now-President Biden] feels 
        very strongly'' and that ``the foundation of our relationship is support 
        for Israel's security'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) finds that the sales of defense items to Israel 
        notified to Congress by the Department of State on May 5, 2021, 
        are consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United 
        States; and
            (2) approves of those sales.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Michael Sheldon POOLE

1170112 (2160239)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Richard A. Pytak Jr., Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
February 16, 2010





/s/
      Richard A. Pytak Jr.Name:
                  Richard
      A. Pytak Jr.Title:
                  Chief
      Financial
Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134953 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134953 COA: 279281 Kent CC: 06-000772-FH, LANCE MATTHEW HOPKINS, 06-001363-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0402 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.

April 9, 2008

Clerk
Richard Don CUTHBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4056

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 775.084(1)(d), (3)(c)(5), Fla. Stat. (2014) ; *Johnson v. State*, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011) ; *Smith v. State*, 909 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; *Boyd v. State*, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.