alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00222

- CR

Frederick Jacob Evans v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 of Williamson County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15

- 07029

- 3

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by
this Court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Jun e 14, 2018
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1390 

To provide for the issuance of a ‘‘forever stamp’’ to honor the sacrifices 

of the brave men and women of the armed forces who have been awarded 

the Purple Heart. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. BROWN, and Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a ‘‘forever stamp’’ to honor 

the sacrifices of the brave men and women of the armed 

forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Perpetual Purple 

5 Heart Stamp Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 

8 (1) the Purple Heart is the oldest military deco9 ration in the world still in use; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1390 IS

1 (2) the Purple Heart was first established by 

2 General George Washington on August 7, 1782, as 

3 the Honorary Badge of Distinction, otherwise known 

4 as the Badge of Military Merit or Decoration of the 

5 Purple Heart; 

6 (3) the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of 

7 the President of the United States and may, among 

8 others, be awarded— 

9 (A) to any member of the armed forces 

10 who is wounded in an action against or held 

11 prisoner of war by an enemy of the United 

12 States; or 

13 (B) posthumously to the next of kin of any 

14 person who is a member of the armed forces at 

15 the time the person is killed or wounded under 

16 circumstances otherwise qualifying that person 

17 for award of the Purple Heart; 

18 (4) more than 1,700,000 Americans have been 

19 awarded the Purple Heart; and 

20 (5) the Purple Heart postage stamp, first 

21 issued by the United States Postal Service on May 

22 30, 2003, honors the sacrifices of the brave men and 

23 women of the armed forces who have been awarded 

24 the Purple Heart. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 1390 IS

1 SEC. 3. PERPETUAL PURPLE HEART STAMP. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to continue to honor the 

3 sacrifices of the brave men and women of the armed forces 

4 who have been awarded the Purple Heart, the Postmaster 

5 General shall provide for the issuance of a forever stamp 

6 suitable for that purpose. 

7 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term 

8 ‘‘forever stamp’’ means a definitive stamp which meets the 

9 postage required for first-class mail up to one ounce in 

10 weight, and which retains full validity for that purpose 

11 even if the rate of that postage is later increased. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The stamp described in sub13 section (a) shall be issued beginning as soon as practicable 

14 after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall not 

15 thereafter be discontinued. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>

                                Stegman & Company
                          Certified Public Accountants
                                    Suite 200
                               400 East Joppa Road
                            Baltimore, Maryland 21286
                                 (410) 823-8000



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
GrandBanc, Inc.

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of GrandBanc, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999, of our
report dated February 1, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of GrandBanc, Inc. and Subsidiary.


                                                      /s/ Stegman & Company
                                                          STEGMAN & COMPANY


Baltimore, Maryland
March 24, 2000
## FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

DATE: March 25, 2020

CASE OF: ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: ALL
VOTERS VOTE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR STATE LEGISLATURE, GOVERNOR, AND CABINET

DOCKET NO.: SC1 9

- 1267 OPINION FILED: March 19, 2020

ATTENTION: ALL PUBLISHERS

THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ABOVE
OPINION:

On page 9

, lines 8

- 9, “ NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. ” has been changed to

“ ANY MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION MUST BE FILED
BY 9:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2020. A RESPONSE TO THE
MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MAY BE FILED BY 9:00 A.M. ON SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 2020. NOT FINAL UNTIL THIS TIME PERIOD EXPIRES TO FILE A REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. ”

SIGNED: OPINION CLERK
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-PO-00149-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK L. HALPER,

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING HEARING RE: MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE [DOC. #116]

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Modify Sentence

[Doc. #116] is set before the Magistrate Judge in Durango, Colorado on November 13, 2013 at 1:30

p.m.

DATED: October 22, 2013. 

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-po-00149-DW Document 119 Filed 10/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02441-REB-BNB

ISADORE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENVER POLICE OFFICERS GARCIA,

ROMAN YEPSHIN,

SERGEY GUREVICH,

DETECTIVE JOEY SMITH, and

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

and Trial Preparation Conference Order [Doc. # 24, filed 5/3/2012] (the “Motion”). I

respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion [Doc. # 24] be GRANTED.

The defendants request an order extending the dispositive motion deadline by just more

than one month and vacating the pretrial conference, and trial preparation conference, and trial

date. Good cause exists to modify the case schedule based on (1) the substitution of defendants’

counsel and (2) scheduling conflicts for two of the defendants which make attendance at the

scheduled trial unreasonably inconvenient.

I respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion [Doc. # 24] be GRANTED and that the

case schedule be modified as follows:

(1) Extending the dispositive motion deadline to September 7, 2012; and

Case 1:11-cv-02441-REB-BNB Document 26 Filed 05/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

(2) Vacating the pretrial conference, trial preparation conference, and trial, to be reset

at a later date.

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b), the parties have 14 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific,

written objections. A party’s failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo

review of the recommendation by the district judge, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. 

Makin v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse,

91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996). A party’s objections to this recommendation must be

both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for

appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.

1996).

Dated May 4, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02441-REB-BNB Document 26 Filed 05/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### CITY OF GADSDEN v. Harry Franklin MOON, pro ami.

7 Div. 117.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

A. M. Rains, of Gadsden, for appellant. McCord & McCord, of Gadsden, for appel-lee.

RICE, Judge.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 17 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 18 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 19 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 20 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 21 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 22 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 23 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 24 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 25 of 26
Case No. 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 19-6 filed 04/30/12 USDC Colorado pg 26 of 26
J.

the judgment of conviction or his sentence and he has not demonstrated any error, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Saitta cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Front Porch Digital
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Matthew
Richman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 Company.

Date:    May 14, 2004                                By: /s/ Matthew Richman
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Matthew Richman
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1461 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from imposing 

penalties against a State under the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families program for failure to satisfy minimum work participation rates 

or comply with work participation verification procedures with respect 

to months beginning after September 2006 and before the end of the 

12-month period that begins on the date the Secretary approves the 

State’s work verification plan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2007 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from imposing penalties against a State under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for failure 

to satisfy minimum work participation rates or comply 

with work participation verification procedures with respect to months beginning after September 2006 and 

before the end of the 12-month period that begins on 

the date the Secretary approves the State’s work 

verification plan. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 1461 IS

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN PEN2 ALTIES UNDER TANF. 

3 Notwithstanding subpart F of part 261 and part 262 

4 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to State 

5 work verification plans required under the Temporary As6 sistance for Needy Families program) or any other provi7 sion of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

8 shall not reduce the State family assistance grant payable 

9 to a State for a fiscal year under section 403(a) of the 

10 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)), or otherwise im11 pose a penalty against a State for failure to comply with 

12 subsection (a) or (i)(2) of section 407 of the Social Secu13 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 607) with respect to months beginning 

14 after September 2006 and before the end of the 12-month 

15 period that begins on the date the Secretary notifies the 

16 State that the work verification plan submitted by the 

17 State pursuant to subpart F of part 261 of title 45, Code 

18 of Federal Regulations, satisfies the requirements of such 

19 subpart. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

GastarExploration Ltd. 

Houston, Texas 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-160776) and Form S-8 (No. 333-159882 and 333-139112) of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. of our reports dated March 25, 2010, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Gastar Exploration Ltd.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP 

Dallas, TX 

March 25, 2010
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41322

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JERRY CRAIG TUDEHOPE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 652

Filed: August 7, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

GUITIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jerry Craig Tudehope was convicted of robbery, Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, 18-6502. The 

district court imposed a unified thirty-year sentence with fifteen years determinate. Tudehope

filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Tudehope appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our 
2

review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for 

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of 

the record, including any new information submitted with Tudehope’s Rule 35 motion, we 

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying 

Tudehope’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 16 filed 09/21/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 16 filed 09/21/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-3 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of

6
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-3 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of

6
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-3 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of

6
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-3 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 4 of

6
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-3 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 5 of

6
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-3 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 6 of

6
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 1150-80 Sylvan Street, Linden, NJ 07036, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                    

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on March 28, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for March 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: January 31, 2008.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E8-2402 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### YATES v. HORNBECK.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00404-CMA Document 47 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
#### Juno Niell GARNER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

L.W.O.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023

- 0877

June 26, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County ; Susan Maulucci

, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig , II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen , Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington

, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

Affirmed.

KELLY, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.