alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh_103.htm


Exhibit 10.3







April 30, 2012












Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc.


914 N. Jefferson Street


Springdale, Arkansas 72764








	
Re:

	
Liberty Bank (“Lender”) loan dated January 16, 2006, stating an original maximum principal amount of $15,000,000.00 (the “Loan”), evidenced by a Loan Agreement dated of even date therewith, as amended, modified or restated through the Sixteenth Loan modification dated effective as of February 15, 2012 (the “Loan Agreement”), and Eleventh Amended and Restated Promissory Note dated effective as of February 15, 2012 (the “Liberty Note”).













	
  

	
Gentlemen:












As of March 31, 2012 AERT has not met the financial covenant in Section 9.1 of the Loan Agreement, concerning a long-term debt service coverage ratio requirement of not less than 2.00 to 1.00. Our Loan Agreement contains restrictions upon the incurrence of Indebtedness under the Negative Covenants section of the Loan Agreement and certain other provisions or covenants, including certain financial covenants, which would need to be waived in the Loan Agreement or the Liberty Note in order to avoid Event of Default of the Loan Agreement.







Liberty gives consent to the waiver of financial covenants contained in Article IX of the Loan Agreement for the first calendar quarter of 2012. Also, Liberty hereby waives any past noncompliance with such financial covenants in Article IX and any past cross-defaults under other Company loans with Liberty and confirms that, to the knowledge of Liberty and giving effect to the provisions hereof, there are no existing “Events of Default”, as defined in either the Loan Agreement of the Liberty Note, and no events that with the giving of notice or the passage of time would constitute an Event of Default there under:







Sincerely,







/s/ D. Scott Hancock


D. Scott Hancock


Executive Vice President







 


 


 


 


 


 




 



PO Box 10890 · Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 ·479) 872-7006


www.mylibertybank.com
Aaron Orlando RICHARDS, Petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 19-5301.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit for further consideration in light of *Ramos* v. *Louisiana* , 590 U.S. --- (2020). Justice Alito, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand: In this and in all other case in which the Court grants, vacates, and remands in light of *Ramos* v. *Louisiana* , I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand. Justice Thomas would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Exhibit V

Redacted in Entirety

Case 2:24-cv-00021-JRG Document 54-23 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3509
Tommy SHARP, Interim Warden, Petitioner v. Patrick Dwayne MURPHY

No. 17-1107

Supreme Court of the United States.

July 9, 2020

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in *McGirt* v. *Oklahoma* , --- U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 2452, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2020).

It is so ordered.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice THOMAS and Justice ALITO dissent.
BOSTON FINANCIAL TAX CREDIT FUND VIII, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION 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 Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VIII
(the "Fund") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 Fund.


                                     /s/Gary Mentesana
                                    -------------------------------------
                                     Gary Mentesana
                                     Principal Executive Officer and
                                     Principal Financial Officer
                                     Arch Street VIII, LP, as
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VIII,
                                     A Limited Partnership


                                     Date:  February 14, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

2:23-cv-00585

ROCHE DIABETES CARE, LTD.,

Roche Diabetes Care, Ltd. 

c/o Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. 

c/o C.T. Corporation System 

150 West Market Street, Suite 800 

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Randall Garteiser 

Garteiser Honea - IP Trial Attorneys 

119 W Ferugson St. 

Tyler, TX 75702

12/13/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 750
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-00585 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 751
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Black Horse Group, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62798

)

Under Contract No. W912DR

- 17

- D

- 0014 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Nicholas T. Solosky

, Esq.

Fox Rothschild LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Adam J. Kwiatkowski , Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board’s

docket with prejudice.

Dated: May 5 , 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62798

, Appeal of Black Horse

Group, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 5, 2021 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York,<br><br>against<br><br>Joseph Wiltshire, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Brenda Rivera, J.), rendered May 18, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Brenda Rivera, J.), rendered May 18, 2016, reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument dismissed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 220.03) was jurisdictionally defective. The instrument recited, in relevant part, that on a particular date and time, and at a location described as "underneath the overpass of the Bruckner Boulevard Expressway," a police officer observed defendant "to have in his custody and control, on a concrete ledge where defendant was seated, one zip lock bag containing a white powdery residue" that the officer determined to be crack cocaine. These facts, even when taken together with all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from them (<i>see People v Jackson</i>, 18 NY3d 738, 747 [2012]), were insufficient to demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that defendant constructively possessed the crack cocaine, i.e., that he had dominion and control over the area where it was located (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยงยง 10.00[8], 220.03; <i>People v Manini</i>, 79 NY2d 561, 573 [1992]). There was no allegation that defendant had control over or a possessory interest in the location, described in the complaint as "NYC property" with posted "no trespass" signs, or was engaged in any drug-related activity, nor an allegation indicating where defendant was "seated" in proximity to the crack cocaine residue or whether it was in plain view (<i>see People v Pearson</i>, 75 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1990]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 25, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ZO I LA D EL CA RM EN D ERA SR OME R O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72912 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 529- 866 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Z oi l a D elC arm en D er as -R om er o, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a n dw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED MA R 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72912 2 r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , O c h a v e v . I NS , 25 4 F . 3d 85 9, 86 1-62 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e r ej ec tD er as -R om er o’ s c on t ent i on thatshe i s e l i gi bl e f or as ylum base d on her m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci algrou p, nam el y y ou ng S al vado ran w om en w h o r e f u s e to a s s is t g an g s . See Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d 738, 745- 46 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( r e

j e c t i ng a s as oc i a l gr oup “ y oung m e n i n E l S a l va dorr e s i s t i ng gang vi ol e nc e . ” ) . F urthe r , D e r a s - R om e r o di d notde m ons tr a t e tha tthe ga ng m em bers ’ threa t s and other c ri m i nal ac t s a gai nsther w er e m ot i vat ed by po l i t i ca l o p in io n , s o c ia l g r o up , o ra n yo th e rp r o te c te dg r o u n d . See O chave , 25 4 F . 3d at 8 6 5 - 6 6 ( n o n e x u s b e tw e e n r ap e b yg u e r illa s a n da n yp r o te c te dg r o u n d ) ; see a l so Zet i no v. H

older , 622 F . 3d 1007, 1016 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( “ A n a l i e n’ s de s i r e t o be f r e e f r om ha r a s s m e ntbyc r i m i na l s m ot i va t e d bythe f torr andom vi ol e nc e byga ng m em bers bear s no n exus t o a prot ec t ed grou nd . ”) . B e c aus e D e r a s - R om e r o f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

ythe l ow e rs t anda r d of

pr oof f or a s y l um , s he ne c e s s ar i l yf a i l s t o s a t i s f

ythe m or e s tr i nge nts t anda r d f orw i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l. See O chave , 254 F . 3d a t868. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DICKEY’S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, 

INC.,

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00054-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Analytical 

Technologies and Defendant Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants. (Dkt. No. 15.) In the Motion, the 

parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of 

the above-captioned action with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claims and without prejudice as to 

Defendant’s counterclaims. (Id. at 1.) 

Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff in the abovecaptioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and all counterclaims asserted 

by Defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own 

costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case 

not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims 

remain. 

Case 2:24-cv-00054-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 75
____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of May, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-00054-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 76
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 100 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 
2 

•HCON 100 EH 

1 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR 

2 CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE THE 50TH AN3 NIVERSARY OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE 

4 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. 

5 The Rotunda of the United States Capitol is author6 ized to be used on June 24, 2014, for a ceremony to com7 memorate the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the 

8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the significant impact the 

9 Act had on the Civil Rights movement. Physical prepara10 tions for the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried out 

11 in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed 

12 by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 100 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

of 1964. versary of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act for a ceremony to commemorate the 50th anni-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               125,243
<SECURITIES>                                         1,495,513
<RECEIVABLES>                                        000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         000
<INVENTORY>                                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     000
<PP&E>                                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       21,161,242<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                000
<BONDS>                                              000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                000
<PREFERRED>                                          000
<COMMON>                                             000
<OTHER-SE>                                           20,645,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         21,161,242<F2>
<SALES>                                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     75,726<F3>
<CGS>                                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     244,845<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      000
<CHANGES>                                            000
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,657,890)<F5>
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (44.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        000
<FN>

<F1>Included in Total Assets: Investments in Local Limited Partnerships, net of
$19,518,164 and Other assets of $22,322
<F2>Included in Total Liabilities and Equity: Accounts payable to affiliate of
$476,022 and Accrued expenses of $40,142
<F3>Inclued in Total Revenue: Investment of $74,696 and Other of $1,030
<F4>Included in Other expenses: Asset management fees,related party of $158,037,
  General and  administrative of $55,466, Provision for valuation for $8,884 and
 Amortization of $22,458
<F5>Included in Net Loss: Equity in losses of Local Limited Partnerships of
 $(1,488,771)
</FN>


</TABLE>
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/03/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      719,985
COMMITMENTS
 117,220   12,047  222,079  345,685  449,327  684,984  683,453   35,001   36,532

CHANGES FROM 11/26/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     15,173)
   2,124   -2,823    9,719   -7,818    8,601    4,025   15,497   11,148     -324

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    16.3      1.7     30.8     48.0     62.4     95.1     94.9      4.9      5.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      158)
      54       24       63       72       62      152      128
```

----

Updated December 6, 2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________

2021-1788, 2021-1835

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19-cv-00090-JRG, Chief 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to voluntarily dismiss these appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42(b), 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeals are withdrawn.

Case: 21-1788 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/25/2023
2 PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

(2) The parties shall bear their own costs.

October 25, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 25, 2023

 

Case: 21-1788 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/25/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00443-JRG 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00444-JRG 

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00445-JRG 

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Please take notice that attorney Jeff Eichmann of the law firm EICHMANN, a 

professional corporation, hereby enters his appearance as counsel for the Plaintiff.

Date: February 15, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeff Eichmann

John Jeffrey Eichmann 

(Cal. Bar No. 227472)

(admitted in the Eastern District) 

EICHMANN, a professional corporation

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 69 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1088
2

662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90049

310-237-9190 (tel.)

jeichmann@eichmann.com

For Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

Certificate of Service

I certify that this document is being served on all counsel of record who have appeared in this 

case through the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Jeff Eichmann

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 69 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1089
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 4115

_____________________________
S LOBODAN N IKOLIC , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

. September 9, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and John Villafrate, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.