alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 18.1**

 

November 12, 2004 

 

 

Board of Directors of Rayovac Corporation 

Atlanta, Georgia 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

 

We haveaudited the consolidated balance sheets of Rayovac Corporation (the Company) and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended September 30, 2004, and have issued our audit report thereon dated November 12, 2004. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company’s annual reporton Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004. As discussed in Note 2(i) to those financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for potential goodwill impairment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.142**,** “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”, by changing the date as of which it will perform its annual testing for goodwill impairment from October 1 to August 31 of each year. Also, in Note 2(i), the Company states that the newlyadopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because choosing August 31 as the evaluation date provides more time prior to the fiscal year-end to complete impairment testing and to report the impact of the impairment tests in theCompany’s annual filing on Form 10-K. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method ofaccounting was based. 

 

With regard to the aforementionedaccounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Company’s compliance with the requirementsof the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter. 

 

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company’s circumstances.

 

Very truly yours, 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP
22 

Hon. Frank xrlght, Earth 10, 1999, Page 2 

pra-determined and allowed in 

as nearly es possible, by the 

Court onae eaoh month for the _ __ 

kind and amounts, 

Commisaiotlers' 

ensutng month, 

upon the application by eaoh oflloec, stating 

the kind, probably amount of expenditure and 

the nedessfty for the expanses of his orfloe 

for such ensulng month, whioh application 

shall, before preaentatlon to said oourt, 

first be enaorna by the aouuty Auaitor If 

say, otharuiae the Oouuty Treaaarar, oaiy ai 

to whether iunds are available for pamnt 

of mm& sxpenoe*......,a 

l SUoh ptaOhaM# -11 be de%+&h 

otfloer, when allama, only by requI8ltion 

ia maawr provide4 by the County Auditor, ii 

any, otherulaa by the Oamlaalonara~ Court. 

Eaoh offloer ahall, at the oloae of eaoh -~ 

month of hiu tenure OS ofiloe, make an ItamLml 

aad aworn report of all apprwad expeaaea 

laourred by him and oharged to hia oounty, 

aooompanglag auoh report with lnvoloee owaring auoh parohaaer and nqalaltlona iaauad 

by him In tmppOrt of euoh report. If suoh 

expenaea be lnourred ln oonneotlon with anf 

partloular oaae, suoh report shall name ariah 

oaee. Suoh report, invoiaes and raqoialtlona 

ahall be aubjeat to the audit of tlm County 

Auditor, lr any, othenlae by the Comduaianara' Court, and If it appears that any item 

was not lnaurred by auoh ofiloer, or that 

suah item lga not a aeoaraary or legal expense or suoh Ofrloe, or purchased upon proper requlsltlon, suoh item ahall ti by aald 

Couaty Auditor or.oourt rejeated, ia whlah 

ease the payment of suoh Item may be ad&xdioated in any oourt & aoapetent jurladlotion. All euoh approved olalma and aooounfs 

shall be’ paid from the Oifiosrs* Salary Fund 

unless atherwiae provided herein,....." 

It appears from the reading of the above provielons that ,auoh oonditloas therein were intended by tha 

Legislature to be oomplfed vrlth by the oountg offiaial 
2% 

Eon. Frank Wright, March 10, 1939, Pae,e 3 

before he oould, as a matter of rlghtk.de-mnd paynent of 

auoh expense. 

Assuming that suoh ooadltlons as set forth in 

Article Se99 have been oomplled with, it 1s therefore 

the opinion of this Department that where suoh orrlcers 

as named in Artiole 3883, aa amended, are required by 

law to make bond, they oaa damand, as a matter of right; 

that augh Item of e%puma ba appromd and that said bond 

premIuma be paid out of tha Cfflaera~ Salary had. Tha 

Mttsr ofrwaonablaneaa OS l uohoxpanao; homrar,and 

it4 approval mat4 rithia thr aimti0n or tb3 oard.aalou~ra* oO(trt, sad ouly when there la a a&ear abuti 

o f l uoh dlaontion, aould it ba said that allow&w and 

payment of auohproaltamwoaldkundatoryonthepart 

of the aounty offlaiala. 

umK:Au 

APPRm: 

.+---% 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TIEAS
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1652

AN ACT

To designate the Old Executive Office Building located at

17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of Columbia, as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1652 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER EX2 ECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING.

3 The Old Executive Office Building located at 17th

4 Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in Washington,

5 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

10 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

11 to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Passed the Senate October 19, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1652

AN ACT

To designate the Old Executive Office Building located at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, in Washington, District of Columbia, as theDwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 56 3

. ESQUI VEL et a l . v . SOUTHFI RE NEW SPAPERS GROUP D/ B/ A THE ALMA TI MES.
Ap p el l an t s ’ b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n s o f erro r w ere d u e o n Decem b er 1 0 , 2 0 1 5

an d h av e n o t b een fi l ed

. Ap p el l an t s h av e no t s o ug h t an ex t en s i o n o f ti m e fo r fi l i n g. Acco rd in g ly , t h i s ap p eal i s DISM ISSED p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l es 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## 03/10/2016 March 10, 2016
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OGELIO C ONC H AS-FER NANDEZ, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-72189 Age n c y No. A092-294-084 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 19, 2012 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd FISHER , C irc u i t Judge s. R oge lio C onc ha s-Fe rnande z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his se c ond m otion to re o pe n b a se d on ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to 

# FIL ED JAN 03 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re ope n , a

nd re v ie w de novo que stions of la w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing C onc ha s -Fe rna nde z ’ s m otion to re o pe n wh e re pe t itione r fa i le d to e sta blish pre judic e arising from

the a lle ge d ine ffe c t i ve a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Se eSingh v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th C ir. 2004) (pre sum ption of pre

judic e re sulting from

c ounse l’ s fa ilure to file a brie f m ay

be re butte d

whe re pe titione r is una

ble to “ show pla

usiblegrounds for re lie f” ). In light of our disposition, we ne e d not a ddre s s C onc ha s-Fe rnande z ’ s c la im re ga rding e quita

ble tolling. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 2 1 8 9 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Commitment of Billy Joe Burd

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 917

- C V

Trial court case number: 93025

- CV

Trial court: 149th District Court of Brazoria County

Date motion filed: September 16 , 2020

Party filing motion: Appell ant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes , Lloyd, and Hightower

.

Date: December 29 , 20 20
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1051]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning 
individualsassociated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of 
which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Clinical Services.
    Date: January 29, 2010.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone 
Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-
7700, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfcdc98d8ccdffd1d6d791d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb898dc9c889bb959293d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-1051 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTONIO JOSEPH WALDO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 402 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

T.D.P., a minor

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2254

[ March 12, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Robert B. Meadows , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 562018CJ000104A and 562019CJ000290A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Breanna Atwood, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., G ERBER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### State of West Virginia *v.*Raymond Songer

(No. 8382)

Submitted May 14, 1936.

Decided June 2, 1936.

*E. E. Robertson*and *Lillian S. Robertson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Homer A. Holt,*Attorney General, and *Kenneth E. Hines,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hatcher, President:

Defendant was sentenced to the reform school upon a charge of stealing an automobile. He prosecutes error here upon the ground that the trial court interrogated the witnesses in manner prejudicial to him.

The defendant, aged fifteen years, Reed Mullens, aged sixteen years, Edgar Martin, aged seventeen years, and William Bias, aged twenty-four years, took a parked *530automobile, not the property of any one of them, at Madison and drove to Barboursville. The three younger boys left the automobile there in charge of Bias, and returned home. Bias was later apprehended with the automobile. The defendant admitted these facts, but claimed he did not know they were stealing the automobile; that Bias represented he had borrowed a car and suggested the ride. Bias denied making the representation.

Edgar Martin was a witness for- the state though friendly to defendant. The court virtually conducted his examination - in chief asking him in all, sixty questions. Reed Mullens was a witness for defendant. Reed testified (without objection) that he did not know they were stealing the car; that Martin told him Bias had the car' borrowed. (Martin was not questioned on that point). While Reed’s examination in chief was in progress, the court interposed and asked him thirty-three questions. Upon Reed’s cross examination, the court again asked a number of questions. Some of the court’s questions were brusque and his interrogations generally, both of Martin and Mullens, tended to indicate to the jury that he did not credit the innocence of defendant. This was prejudicial error. “In the trial of a criminal case * * * the court should be extremely cautious not to intimate in any manner, by word, tone, or demeanor, his opinion upon any fact in issue.” *State*v. *Austin,*93 W. Va. 704, 117 S. E. 607, 608. Accord: *Ball*v. *Wilson,*98 W. Va. 211, 127 S. E. 22; *State*v. *Hively,*103 W. Va. 237, 136 S. E. 862; *State*v. *Waters,*104 W. Va. 433, 140 S. E. 139.

The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly reversed and a new trial awarded the defendant.

*Reversed; neto trial awarded.*
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Young & Rubicam Inc. (File No. 333-57605) of our report
dated  February 16, 1999  included in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K.  We also
consent to the  application of such report to the Financial  Statement  Schedule
for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1997 and 1998 listed in the  accompanying
index when such schedule is read in  conjunction  with the financial  statements
referred to in our report.  The audits  referred to in such report also included
these schedules.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


New York, New York
February 16, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                      1769991
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               3139948
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                 5435256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           10835056
<PP&E>                                      9464904
<DEPRECIATION>                              4840297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             15620720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3695382
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                    2782425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  9049163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               15620720
<SALES>                                     9176862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            9220433
<CGS>                                       6467925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               6467926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             581479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           103983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              512183
<INCOME-TAX>                                 188311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          323872
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 323872
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .06


</TABLE>
#### Burr H. Simpson, *State Road Commissioner of West Virginia, v.*Paul C. Hogsett, *Clerk, etc.*

(No. 8551)

Submitted February 2, 1937.

Decided February 16, 1937.

*Clarence W. Meadows,*Attorney General, and *Forrest B. Poling,*Assistant Attorney General, for relator.

*Nickell Kramer,*for respondent.

Kenna, President:

The State Road Commissioner seeks mandamus to compel Paul C. Hogsett, clerk of the county court of Greenbrier County, to record deeds for road rights-of-way conveyed to the State Road Commission without charging the usual recording fees. The deeds in question have been lodged with the clerk by the State Road Commissioner with request that they be recorded free of charge. This the clerk has refused to do. »

Code 59-1-18 provides that “no clerk or sheriff shall receive payment out of the treasury for any service rendered in case of the state, except where it is allowed *257by law.” Respondent Hogsett takes the position that since the statute creating the State Road Commission makes it a separate and distinct corporation which may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, etc., it is not the state within the purview of the section quoted. In this he is mistaken. See *Mahone*v. *Road Commission,*99 W. Va. 397, 129 S. E. 320, holding that the State Road Commission is a direct governmental agency of the state, and citing the cases which form the basis for that holding. The attorney general, on January 28, 1935, had advised the Road Commission that deeds for rights-of-way might be recorded without the payment of recordation fees, and had pointed out the basis, for that opinion. This opinion had been quoted at length by the Road Commissioner in a letter to the respondent herein.

The peremptory writ will be awarded.

*Writ awarded.*
Exhibit 32.0
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
  The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
   Date: March 24, 2010
   
  /s/Stephen E. WesselStephen E. Wessel

Chief Executive Officer/s/Stephen F. TheriotStephen F. Theriot

Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 Note:    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to GS Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60544

Summary Calendar

BASIL UZOMA ONYIDO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A029 891 590

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Basil Uzoma Onyido seeks review of a decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to sua sponte reopen and 

reconsider his 1999 deportation. See In re Onyido, 22 I. & N. Dec. 552 (BIA 

1999). This was the second such motion Onyido filed in 2013, almost 14 years 

after he was deported. The BIA denied the motion as both time-barred and 

number-barred, regardless of how it was construed. The BIA also found no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60544 Document: 00512567740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2014
No. 13-60544

exceptional circumstances to justify reopening, and it noted that relief was 

barred by Onyido’s deportation. In his petition for review, Onyido challenges 

his deportation and the underlying aggravated felony conviction.

Onyido invoked the BIA’s authority to sua sponte reopen proceedings 

under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2. Section 1003.2(a) affords an Immigration Judge (IJ)

or the BIA “complete discretion” to deny a motion to reopen, and we therefore 

have “no legal standard by which to judge” such a decision. Ramos-Bonilla v. 

Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 2008). We accordingly lack jurisdiction 

to review the BIA’s decision. See id.; Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 

246, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing other circuits’ decisions holding the same). 

Onyido’s petition for review is DISMISSED. All motions are DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-60544 Document: 00512567740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2014
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RON THEODORE RUBINO, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4193

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 16, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Nicholas Martino, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

MORRIS, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.