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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059593
<NAME> LINDBERG CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         197,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,490,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                   584,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,896,288
<PP&E>                                     140,776,116
<DEPRECIATION>                              62,957,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,323,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,618,776
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,734
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,326,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               150,323,143
<SALES>                                     61,607,955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,607,955
<CGS>                                       44,881,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,881,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,803,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,358,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,727,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,290,779
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,436,761
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,436,761
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. BASS

No. 140 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 240.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1977. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 13 June 1977.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COREY DONOVAN; LINDA DONOVAN

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY

PETITION OF: UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 42 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of July, 2020, the Petition for Certification of Question of

Law is GRANTED. The Court shall consider the following issues:

1. Is a named insured's signing of the waiver form set out at 75 Pa.C.S. §1738(d) sufficient to waive inter

- policy stacking of underinsured motorist benefits under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, where the policy insures more tha n one vehicle at the time the form is signed?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, is a household vehicle exclusion

contained in a policy in which the named insured did not validly waive inter

policy stacking enforceable to bar a claim made by a resident relative who
is injured while occupying a vehicle owned by him and not insured under the policy under which the claim is made?

3. If the answers to Qu estions 1 and 2 are no, is the c oordination

- of

- benefits
provision in the Automobile Policy nonetheless applicable, such that it limits

. . . recovery of underinsured motorist benefits under the policy

. . ., or does[ 42 EM 2020 ]

- 2

the lack of a valid waiver of inter

- policy stacking render that provision
inapplicable ?

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to establish a briefing s chedule and list this case

for oral argument.
Case 1:07-cr-00382-JFK Document 28 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cr-00382-JFK Document 28 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cr-00382-JFK Document 28 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cr-00382-JFK Document 28 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cr-00382-JFK Document 28 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cr-00382-JFK Document 28 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 6 of 6
Case 7:07-cr-00374-CLB Document 21 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### WALLPAPER CO. v. PEACOCK & ASSOC.

No. 124 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 149.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 January 1979.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 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 Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  November 14, 2008

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

 

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

UMG Recordings

V.

07-cv-3492

Does

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action is

reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Karas

 

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk’s Office of the

Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge’s initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

Reassignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Dated: 5/4/7

By: Lourdes Aquino

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-03492-RJS Document 3 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

By signing below, each of theundersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, (i) thisreport for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)the information contained in this report fairly represents, in all materialaspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Liberty Homes,Inc.

 

 

Signed this 14th dayof November, 2003.

 
| /s/ Edward J. Hussey                      |   | /s/ Marc A. Dosmann                                            |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Edward J. Hussey  Chief Executive Officer |   | Marc A. Dosmann  Vice President – Chief Financial Officer |

 

This written statement is beingfurnished to the Security and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to thisreport.  A signed original of thiswritten statement has been provided to Liberty Homes, Inc. and will be retainedby Liberty Homes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### COMPLEX, INC. v. FURST

No. 373P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 282.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 August 1982.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 198 (Monday, October 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58285-58286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5067]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee 
(SITAC) will meet on October 30, 2007, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 
Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and 
Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on 
technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable 
to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

Agenda

    Public Session:
    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Remarks from Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
    3. Industry Presentations.
    4. New Business.
    Closed Session:

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
confidence, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#673e1417150e0900021527050e144903080449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db82a8aba9b2b5bcbea99bb9b2a8f5bfb4b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a> no later than October 23, 2007.
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to 
the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time 
before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of 
public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee 
suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 
Springer.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the General Counsel, formally determined on September 26, 2007 pursuant 
to Section 10(d) of the Federal

[[Page 58286]]

Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(d)), that the 
portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the 
Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt 
from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 
2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be 
open to the public.
    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: October 10, 2007.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-5067 Filed 10-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINCE FLAHERTY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-71336

Tax Ct. No. 5903-09L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Vince Flaherty appeals pro se from Tax Court’s decision dismissing for

failure to prosecute his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue’s determination to collect by levy unpaid federal income taxes for 1996. 

FILED

JUN 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-71336

We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of

discretion, Noli v. Comm’r, 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Flaherty’s petition

for failure to prosecute given Flaherty’s failure to appear for trial and his history of

delay, especially since it had already granted two trial continuances and Flaherty

had been warned multiple times that his case could be dismissed. See id. (noting

“dismissal for failure properly to prosecute will normally arise where a party fails

to appear at trial”); see also T.C. R. 123(a), (b) (Tax Court may dismiss a case and

enter a decision against a petitioner where the petitioner fails properly to prosecute

or fails to proceed as required by the Tax Court).

Flaherty’s contention that the dismissal of his petition violated his due

process rights and his right to trial is unpersuasive.

We grant Flaherty’s motion to file a substitute reply, and instruct the Clerk

to file the reply brief submitted on March 19, 2013.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2
 
 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPSouthwark Towers32 London Bridge StreetLondon SE1 9SYTelephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652www.pwc.com/uk
 Report of Independent Accountants
        - 33 -




---



##### 



Appendix A
 The Directors
    
    The DirectorsBarclays Bank PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Notes 2006-A PLCBarclaycard
    
    1 Churchill Place1234 Pavilion Drive
    
    LondonNorthampton
    
    E14 5HPNN4 7SGThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 2) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 3) PLC1 Churchill Place
    
    1 Churchill PlaceLondon
    
    LondonE14 5HP
    
    E14 5HPThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 4) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 5) PLC1 Churchill Place
    
    1 Churchill PlaceLondon
    
    LondonE14 5HP
    
    E14 5HPThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 6) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 7) PLC1 Churchill Place
    
    1 Churchill PlaceLondon
    
    LondonE14 5HP
    
    E14 5HPThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 8) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 9) PLC1 Churchill Place
    
    1 Churchill PlaceLondon
    
    LondonE14 5HP
    
    E14 5HPThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 10) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 11) PLC1 Churchill Place
    
    1 Churchill PlaceLondon
    
    LondonE14 5HP
    
    E14 5HPThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
    
    Barclaycard Funding PLC26 New Street
    
    1 Churchill PlaceSt. Helier
    
    LondonJersey
    
    E14 5HPJE2 3RA
 - 34 -




---



##### 



Appendix B
 Managements Assertion Concerning Compliance
with requirements set forth in the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement between
 Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23 November 1999 (BSA).
 21 May 2007
     
  
 End of Filing
 - 35 -
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 00 16

_____________________________
T IMOTHY G. M ALONE ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

December 7, 2023

P ER C URIAM

. The Court denies the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on the merits.

B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , 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 Timothy G. Malone, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            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 Annual Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31,2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of 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 result of
        operations of the Company.


          /s/ William E. Luther
              William E. Luther
              Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
              October 6, 2006
bntx-ex415_128.htm



 

Exhibit 4.15

 

 

 

THE SYMBOL “[***]” DENOTES PLACES WHERE CERTAIN IDENTIFIED

INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (i) NOT MATERIAL, AND (ii) WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED

 

 

 

 

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT

 

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT ("First Amendment")

is made and entered into, effective as of June 1, 2018 ("Amendment Effective Date"), by and between BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Germany ("RNP") and BioNTech AG, a stock corporation organized under the laws of Germany ("BNT") (RNP and BNT collectively, "BioNTech"), and Genentech, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware ("GNE") and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, a corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland ("Roche") (GNE and Roche, collectively, "Genentech"). BioNTech and Genentech are sometimes referred to herein individually as a  "Party"  and collectively as the "Parties ."

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated as of September 20, 2016 pursuant to which BioNTech and Genentech agreed to collaborate in the  research, development, and commercialization of Collaboration Products (the "Agreement");

 

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement  to add a patent to the list  of BioNTech Core Patents as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

 

I .  Schedule  1.20  BioNTech  Core  Patents.  Schedule 1.20  shall  be  deleted  and replaced  in its entirety with the revised Schedule 1.20 attached hereto.

 

2. Survival of Agreement Terms. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified by this First Amendment shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same definition as in the Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this First Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and conditions set forth in this First Amendment shall control with respect to the subject matter hereof.

 

[Signature page follows -  the rest of this page intentionally  left blank]

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized, on  the Amendment Effective Date.

 

 


	
GENENTECH, INC.
	
BIONTECH RNA





	

	
PHARMACEUTICALS GMBH




By:By:

Name: Name:

Title:

Title:Title:

 


	
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD
	
BIONTECH SE




By:By:

Name:Name:

Title:

Title:Title:

 


	
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD
	





By:

Name:

Title:



2

 
 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BioNTech Core Patents

 


			
	
No.
	
Solely owned BioNTech Core
	
In-Licensed BioNTech Core

	
Patents
	
Patents

	
[***]
	
[***]
	
[***]




 


		
	
Neoepitope Prediction Algorithm

	
[***]
	
[***]




 

 

[***]



3
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 15 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 13
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30675

KIMBERLY SIMON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:13

- CV

- 3074

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Kimberly Simon appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to Schlumberger Technology Corporation in her action under the Americans

with Disabilities Act . Simon asserts that the district court erred in ruling that
her accommodation request was untimely and in finding her responsible for
the breakdown of the interactive process. This c ourt has consid ered this appeal

on the basis of the briefs , the pertinent portions of the record , and the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30675 Document: 00513371632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016No. 15

- 30675

2 applicable law . Having done so, the judgment is affirmed, essentially for the

reasons stated in the Memorandum Ruling of the district court.

AFFIRMED

. Case: 15-30675 Document: 00513371632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2016
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HULON PONDER, III, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-52

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed May 23, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Pinellas County; Michael F. 

Andrews, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hatten v. State, 203 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016); Betancourt v. 

State, 804 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2001); Kirkland v. State, 684 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1996); State 

v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1985); Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2010); Burttram v. State, 846 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Olsen v. State, 751 

So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); State v. Richards, 639 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); 

Chavers v. State, 115 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.