In Weintraub v. Alter, 482 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that the filing date "is presumptively shown by the filing date which the clerk of the trial court stamps on the face of the notice--although this is not a conclusive showing and may be rebutted by other evidence." Weintraub, 482 So. 2d at 457. Thus, the issue presented here is whether under rule 1.080(e) the clerk's time stamp that appears on the face of the notice or paper filed in the court is dispositive of the filing date under a bright-line reading of rule 1.080(e), or whether the clerk's time stamp is presumptive only and may be rebutted by other evidence demonstrating that the notice of appeal was timely filed. As explained below, we agree with the holding of the Third District in Weintraub that the clerk's time stamp is presumptive evidence of the date of filing, but that the presumption may be overcome by sufficient evidence that the document was actually received by the clerk within the time deadline.