vision requires the trial court to award costs to the prevailing party, and a zero award for a plaintiff deems a defendant the prevailing party. See Tacker v. Mathews, 845 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Connell v. City of Plantation, 901 So. 2d 317, 320 4 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 70, Street, Fort L

citing United States Corrado, 227 iinu F.3d 528, 540 (6th Cir.2000)). 's court has required "literal compliance" with this nile. United States I Tacker!. 113 F.3d 603, 613 (6th Cir.1997). FN12. This provision was replaced, effective December 1, 2002, with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(iX3) (2003), w

ce (SPAT • If the financial ktitutionn the top lelt of to front of this stens isnot LBS Nona Savas, Frontal Santee carries year =aunt as clearing Tacker by arra-gement wile the tdcated inslitutai We in you of this relatcnshio nine° you opened this accost h the cast your era and seogities ae Mated