alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JOHN CLARK,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 81-73009

BARRY MINTEZEE, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION REQUESTING COPIES OF COURT FILES

Before the court is a motion requesting copies of certain court files, filed by

Petitioner John Clark. According to the motion, Petitioner was convicted on July 14,

1977 on four counts of felony murder and has been in state custody since that time.

Petitioner states that, at some point during his incarceration, the Michigan Department

of Corrections purportedly lost his “entire court file.” Petitioner asks this court’s

assistance to “reconstruct the court records” so that he may file his first post-conviction

motion in state court. The court will deny the motion.

First, the court is not persuaded that Petitioner’s motion is properly before this

court. The caption of the motion, as well as the supporting affidavits, indicate, not this

court, but Wayne County Circuit Court. While a 1981 federal case number is also listed

on the document, it appears that Petitioner intended to file his state-court captioned

motion in state court.

Moreover, even if Petitioner seeks relief from this court, he has provided no

authority requiring this court to burrow through an almost thirty-year-old closed federal

2:81-cv-73009-RHC Doc # 3 Filed 07/28/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
1

Petitioner requests a list of, at least, thirty-seven documents, and likely many

more. For example, he requests “other pre-trial motions,” without specifying which or

how many of such motions he needs.

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\81-73009.CLARK.RequestDocuments.wpd 2

case to locate any of the documents listed on Petitioner’s lengthy, and somewhat

vague,1 list of requested documents. Petitioner does not explain why he seeks a federal

court’s intervention in a state court matter when he can presumably seek the requested

relief from a state court. Finally, Petitioner does not articulate with any degree of

particularity why the requested documents are necessary to pursue post-conviction

relief. For all of these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion requesting copies of court files [Dkt. # 2]

is DENIED. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 28, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, July 28, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:81-cv-73009-RHC Doc # 3 Filed 07/28/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
Opinion issued July 11, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00494-CV

———————————

IN RE J. RAY RILEY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, J. Ray Riley, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that 

the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on his motion for entry of 

judgment, which was filed February 11, 2022, and presented to the court at a 

hearing on the motion on May 4, 2022.

* Relator has informed this Court that the 

trial court has entered final judgment. 

* The underlying case is Riley v. Caridas, Cause Number 2016-04629, pending in 

the 281st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Christine Weems 

presiding.
2

This Court cannot decide a case that has become moot. See Heckman v. 

Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); In re Salverson, No. 01-12-

00384-CV, 2013 WL 557264, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 14, 

2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). “If a case is or becomes moot, the court must 

vacate any order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of 

jurisdiction.” Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162. Because the trial court granted the 

requested relief, we must dismiss the mandamus proceeding as moot. See In re 

Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) 

(“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any 

stage of the legal proceedings . . . .”); In re Jackson, No. 01-12-00020-CV, 2012 

WL 405707, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. 

op.) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus as moot because relator had 

received requested relief). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-07

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

LUIS VIZCARRA,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On June 2, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me

on June 2, 2009. In open court, with the assistance of an interpreter, I examined the Defendant

under oath, confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant

regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 130 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 443
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: June 4, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date, electronically

served on Shane Waller and Robert Dunn, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: June 4, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 130 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 444
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-007-PHX-DJH

JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant is now entitled to be discharged for the 

reason that the jury has returned its verdict, finding the Defendant not guilty as to Counts

1-51 of the Superseding Indictment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant is hereby 

acquitted and discharged pursuant to Rule 32(k), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Dated this 16th day of November, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1980 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 1
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 49 Att. 13

Dockets.Justia.com
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants. 

CR-18-422-PHX-SPL (BSB) ORDER GRANTING THE 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION RE ORDER TO 

RESOLVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT 

PRIVILEGE ISSUES 

 

 The Court having reviewed the United States’ Motion for Clarification re Order to 

Resolve Attorney-Client Privilege Issues, and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the government may re-initiate its filter review of all materials 

that are potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, which will ensure the 

discovery process continues to move forward in an efficient manner. 

 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 355-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Aloysius (Ken) Kow, certify that

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Drucker
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

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

4. I, the registrants certifying officer, am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

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

5. I, the registrants certifying officer, based on my most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, have disclosed
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All deficiencies and weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

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

December 15, 2007

/s/ Aloysius (Ken) Kow Aloysius (Ken) KowActing Chief Financial Officer

---
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33960-33961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16657]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1995--Rev., Supp. No 22]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Termination of 
Authority: Aetna Life and Casualty Company, Century American Casualty 
Company, Reliance National Insurance Company of New York, Titan 
Indemnity Company, United Pacific Insurance Company of New York

    Notice is hereby given that the Certificates of Authority issued by 
the Treasury to the above listed companies, under the United States 
Code, Title 31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as acceptable sureties 
on Federal bonds are terminated effective June 30, 1996.
    The Companies were last listed as acceptable sureties on Federal 
bonds at 60 FR 34436, June 30, 1995.
    With respect to any bonds currently in force with the above listed 
companies, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration 
and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted 
from these Companies. In addition, bonds that are continuous in nature 
should not be renewed.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet
(http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/finman/c570.html) or through 
our computerized public bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at 
(202) 874-6817/6872/6953/7034/8608. A hard copy may be purchased from 
the Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC, telephone (202) 
512-0132.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West highway, Room 
6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20872, telephone (202/FTS) 874-6850.


[[Page 33961]]


    Dated: June 25, 1996.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16657 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
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

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH-2

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY VIDEO OR TELECONFERENCING 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (CA Bar No.135311, admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA Bar No. 304917, admitted pro hac vice)

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, California 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949)369-3701

Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com

 wbernstein@bklwlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

James Larkin,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH-2

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR 

DEFENDANT JAMES LARKIN’S 

COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY VIDEO 

OR TELECONFERENCING FOR 

STATUS CONFERENCE ON 

NOVEMBER 2, 2022

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., counsel of record for Defendant James Larkin, respectfully requests 

leave to appear by phone or videoconferencing at the November 2, 2022 Status Conference in this 

matter. As good cause therefore, Mr. Bienert submits the following:

As reflected in the concurrently-filed Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP’s Motion to 

Withdraw as Retained Counsel, Mr. Larkin terminated Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP’s 

(“BKLW”) legal services and representation in this matter on October 29, 2022. As such, in the event

that the Court does not grant the pending motion to withdraw before the hearing, Mr. Bienert 

requests that the Court permit him to appear telephonically at the November 2, 2022 Status 

Conference. Under the circumstances, given that Mr. Bienert is out of state and would incur costs 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1489 Filed 10/30/22 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH-2

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY VIDEO OR TELECONFERENCING 

and expenses for travel and accommodations to attend this hearing in person, he submits that 

attending the hearing via video or teleconference would be appropriate.

It is not expected that excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) will occur because of 

this motion or an order based thereon.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 29, 2022 BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP

 s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

 Whitney Z. Bernstein

Attorneys for James Larkin

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1489 Filed 10/30/22 Page 2 of 3
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

1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH-2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 29, 2022, I electronically transmitted the attached document 

to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic 

Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as counsel of record.

/s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1489 Filed 10/30/22 Page 3 of 3
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

1

feder law office, p.a.

2930 e. camelback road, suite 160

phoenix, arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

fl@federlawpa.com

Bruce Feder - State Bar No. 004832

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SPL

DEFENDANT SCOTT SPEAR’S

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT PADILLA’S

MOTION FOR ITEMIZATION OF

BRADY/GIGLIO MATERIAL [273]

Defendant, SCOTT SPEAR, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby joins in

Defendant Padilla’s Motion for Itemization of Brady/Giglio Material [273] and adopts the

positions set forth in said Motion as if fully set forth herein. The issues raised by Defendant

Padilla apply with equal force to Defendant Spear.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of August, 2018.

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

/s/ Bruce Feder

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

. . .

. . .

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 276 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 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

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 21st day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted the

foregoing to the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice

of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp: Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov

John Kucera: John.Kucera@usdoj.gov

Reginald Jones: Reginald.Jones@usdoj.gov

Peter S. Kozinets: Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

Paul Cambria: pcambira@lglaw.com

James Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Erin McCampbell: emccampbell@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Rever: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Ronald London: ronnielondon@dwt.com

Janey Henze Cook: janey@henzecookemurphy.com

John Littrell: jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com

Kenneth Miller: kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

Michael Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Stephen M. Weiss: sweiss@karpweiss.com

Michael Kimerer: mdk@kimerer.com

Tom Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Gary Lincenberg: gsl@birdmarella.com

Ariel Neuman: aneuman@birdmarella.com

KC Maxwell: kcm@kcmaxlaw.com

David Wakukawa: dsw@kcmaxlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defense

By: /s/ A. Jones

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 276 Filed 08/21/18 Page 2 of 2
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3623

To require the Federal Communications Commission to revise its television

duopoly rules to require public comment on certain local marketing

agreements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 1996

Mr. FARR of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to revise

its television duopoly rules to require public comment

on certain local marketing agreements.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—

5 (1) local marketing agreements for television

6 stations should be a method for stations to maintain

7 both their operations and their independence in

8 times of need;
2

•HR 3623 IH

1 (2) local marketing agreements for television

2 stations have in practice involved comprehensive

3 agreements turning over most operations and control

4 over sales and revenue of one station to another en5 tity;

6 (3) such agreements may jeopardize the inde7 pendence of television stations and media diversity

8 in small markets; and

9 (4) current rules of the Federal Communica10 tions Commission for local marketing agreements for

11 television stations do not take into account a sta12 tion’s independence, the effect on small media mar13 kets, or the need for input from the public.

14 SEC. 2. REVISION OF DUOPOLY RULES REQUIRED.

15 (a) RULE CHANGES REQUIRED.—The Federal Com16 munications Commission shall revise section 73.3555(b) of

17 its rules (47 C.F.R. 73.3555(b))—

18 (1) to treat as an attributable interest any

19 agreement to broker more than 15 percent of the

20 broadcast time per week of a television station to

21 any party (including all parties under common con22 trol) who directly or indirectly owns, operates, or

23 controls an overlapping television station;

24 (2) to require that any such agreement be a

25 signed written instrument that is maintained in the
3

•HR 3623 IH

1 public file of the stations that are parties to the

2 agreement and is available for public inspection; and

3 (3) to permit, after notice and public comment,

4 waivers of such rule for agreements described in

5 paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that

6 such waiver is consistent with the public interest,

7 convenience, and necessity.

8 (b) OVERLAPPING STATION DEFINITION.—For pur9 poses of subsection (a), two television stations shall be

10 treated as overlapping stations in the Grade B contours

11 of such stations signal overlap, as determined under sec12 tion 73.3555 of the Commission’s rules.

Æ
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

LEANNE EICOFF , Appellant,

v.

STEVEN FELSENTHAL, ESQ, NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee of the HELENE E. EICOFF TRUST, and SUGAR FELSENTHAL GRAIS & HELSINGER, LLP , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 872

[ January 13, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Paige Gillman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- CA

- 004196

- XXXX

- MB

.

Daniel A. McGowan, Adrian P. Thomas and Michele M. Thomas of Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jonathan A. Galler and Lawrence J. Miller of Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher Miller P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

D AMOORGIAN , C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.