alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

February 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-20224

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RUBEN CONTRERAS-LOPEZ, also known as Ruben Gonzalez,

also known as Able Gonzalez, also known as Able

Ramirez-DeLaToire, also known as Able RamirezGonzalez, also known as Able Ramirez,

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-255-1

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

Before KING, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In August 1999 Ruben Contreras-Lopez (“Contreras”) was

convicted upon pleading guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation and was sentenced to a prison term and three years of

supervised release. The district court imposed as conditions of

supervised release that Contreras not commit another federal,

state, or local crime and that he not illegally reenter the

United States. The district court revoked Contreras’s supervised
No. 05-20224

-2-

release in 2004 and imposed a further term of imprisonment

because Contreras was again found in the United State illegally

during his supervised release term.

Contreras appeals from the revocation, arguing that the

district court abused its discretion because he did not receive

the statutory written notice of the conditions of supervised

release required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(f) and 3603(1). He argues

further that the error does not qualify as harmless error because

he lacked actual notice of the conditions. The Government argues

that we should apply plain error review because Contreras did not

properly raise his argument at the revocation hearing in the

district court.

The record shows that the district court correctly informed

Contreras of the conditions of his supervised release, and

Contreras indicated that he understood. Therefore, Contreras had

actual notice. The district court did not commit error, plain or

otherwise, by revoking Contreras’s supervised release. See

United States v. Arbizu, 431 F.3d 469, 470 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
**STEAM ELECTRIC**

**DUMMY R** **E P**  **L AC**  **E M**  **E NT**  **P A**  **G E**  **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **20 09**  **- 0819**  **DCN:**
Editorial Note on Part 478
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 478 appear by T.D. ATF-411, 64 FR 17291, Apr. 9, 1999, T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3750, Jan. 24, 2003, and ATF-11F, 73 FR 57240, Oct. 2, 2008.

§ 478.73 Notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of civil fine. ( a ) *Basis for action.* Whenever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has willfully violated any provision of the Act or this part, a notice of revocation of the license, ATF Form 4500, may be issued. In addition, a notice of revocation of the license, on ATF Form 4500, may be issued whenever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee fails to have secure gun storage or safety devices available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees (except in any case in which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee). In addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) and 18 U.S.C. 924(p), a notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of a civil fine may be issued on ATF Form 4500 whenever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has knowingly transferred a firearm to an unlicensed person and knowingly failed to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1) with respect to the transfer and, at the time that the transferee most recently proposed the transfer, the national instant criminal background check system was operating and information was available to the system demonstrating that transfer to the transferee or their receipt of a firearm would violate 18 U.S.C. 922(d), 922(g), or 922(n) (as applicable), or State, local, or Tribal law; or that a licensee has violated 18 U.S.C. 922(z)(1) by selling, delivering, or transferring any handgun to any person other than a licensee, unless the transferee was provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun.
( b ) *Issuance of notice.* The notice shall set forth the matters of fact constituting the violations specified, dates, places, and the sections of law and regulations violated. The Director shall afford the licensee 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice in which to request a hearing prior to suspension or revocation of the license, or imposition of a civil fine. If the licensee does not file a timely request for a hearing, the Director shall issue a final notice of suspension or revocation and/or imposition of a civil fine on ATF Form 5300.13, as provided in § 478.74.
[T.D. ATF-415, 63 FR 58278, Oct. 29, 1998, as amended by ATF-27P, 74 FR 1878, Jan. 14, 2009; ATF 2013R-9F, 79 FR 46692, Aug. 11, 2014; ATF 2008R-15P, 81 FR 32235, May 23, 2016; ATF 24P, 87 FR 193, Jan. 4, 2022; ATF 2022R-09, 89 FR 28631, Apr. 19, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

#### § 41.37 [Reserved]
#### Gretna State Bank v. John Grabow.

Filed April 8, 1898.

No. 8004.

Action on Subscription for Stock: Verdict eor Defendant. The record presents no question of law. Evidence examined, and *held*to sustain the finding of the district court.

Error from the district conrt of Sarpy connty. Tried below before Blair, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Gregory, Day & Day,*for plaintiff in error.

*James Hassett, contra.*

Ragan, C.

In the district court of Douglas county the Gretna State Bank sued John Grabow on a contract of subscription made by him for a certain amount of its capital stock. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Grabow, and the bank has filed here a petition in error to review that judgment.

Grabow admitted having subscribed for $500 of the capital stock of the bank, but interposed as a defense to the action that one A. U. Hancock was the promoter of the bank, a corporation, and procured the subscriptions to its stock and that to induce him, Grabow, to become a subscriber represented to him that one Hans Peters had also agreed to become a subscriber for the stock of the bank; that he, Grabow, believed said representation of Hancock to be true, and in reliance thereupon signed *548the .subscription; that the representation made by Hancock ay as false, and that within a day after signing said subscription lie, Grabow, ascertained that it was false and notified Hancock that he would not be bound by the contract of subscription and requested him to erase his name from the list, which Hancock then and there agreed to do. Whether the signature of Grabow to this stock subscription was procured by the false representation of Hancock was the only question litigated on the trial. It was fairly submitted to the jury by the instructions of the court, and the jury found, in effect, that Grabow’s signature to. the stock subscription was procured by the false representation of Hancock. The evidence sustains this finding.

Complaints are made of the action of the district court in the admission of certain testimony and also in giving certain instructions. We have carefully examined all these complaints and have reached the conclusion that there is no error in the record which calls for a reversal. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Metropolitan Street Railway Company v. State Board of Tax Commissioners.

Motion for resettlement granted. Memorandum per curiam. Orders to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
(No. 77-CC-1020

#### Floyd Luckie, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed August 15, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

*231The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
Exhibit 99.2

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Presidential
Realty Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas Viertel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

    (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 the results of operations of the Company.


         Presidential Realty Corporation

         By: /S/  THOMAS VIERTEL
             -------------------
                Thomas Viertel
                Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 12, 2002
1

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:46 PM

To: cjohnson@aluminum.org; Palazzolo Michael A.

Subject: Fw: SecAL RTR_Agenda_TAA-Dec 6 2011.doc

Attachments: SecAL RTR_Agenda_TAA-Dec 6 2011.doc; Non-RiskIssues_120211_v3_rb.doc

Attached is the agenda and the rule changes that we plan to discuss. They represent our current 

dispositions, but we look forward to hearing from industry on next Tuesday. Let me know if you have any 

questions 

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 

Mail Drop D243-02 

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207 

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov 
Att. 1 p1 of 1

Agenda

December 6, 2011

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production 

Risk and Technology Review

1) Introduction: Those in attendance

Aluminum Association Members

2) Preliminary Results of the Risk and Technology Review

a. Availability of information from industry on any additional work practices for 

D/F emission reductions from uncontrolled furnaces

b. HF emission limits

c. Compliance Testing for Uncontrolled furnaces

d. Switching Furnace Classifications

3) Page by Page review of issues raised by industry, TAA, OECA and EPA Regional 

Offices and our draft dispositions related to these issues
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

29

30

31

DAY

 12,188

 12,347

 12,448

 12,529

 12,712

 13,331

 13,754

 14,096

 14,303

 14,504

 14,694

 14,854

 14,973

 15,122

 15,213

 15,414

 15,678

 15,958

 16,218

 16,404

 16,689

 16,981

 17,254

 15,765

 17,878

 18,210

 18,462

 18,676

 18,913

 19,211

 19,358

 22,778

 22,849

 22,972

 23,202

 23,308

 23,605

 23,752

 23,752

 23,846

 23,944

 24,010

 24,060

 24,122

 24,131

 24,197

 24,224

 24,283

 24,301

 24,287

 24,359

 24,350

 24,332

 24,319

 23,472

 24,314

 24,381

 24,430

 24,444

 24,529

 24,574

 24,771

STORAGE - A.F. 

 34,966

 35,196

 35,420

 35,731

 36,020

 36,936

 37,506

 37,848

 38,149

 38,448

 38,704

 38,914

 39,095

 39,253

 39,410

 39,638

 39,961

 40,259

 40,505

 40,763

 41,039

 41,313

 41,573

 39,237

 42,192

 42,591

 42,892

 43,120

 43,442

 43,785

 44,129

1,056

573

681

671

778

1,691

1,094

773

512

701

354

396

365

576

380

277

248

226

451

416

446

401

425

421

570

617

640

376

682

481

620

1,223

689

794

828

924

2,153

1,381

945

664

852

483

502

456

656

459

392

411

376

575

546

585

539

556

-757

2,060

818

792

491

844

654

793

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2014 FULL NATURAL FLOW AT NEW MELONES DAM RUN DATE: 04/25/2014

TOTALS +9,494 22,684

* October 1, 44,994

 100.6

 101.9

 103.5

 105.2

 107.0

 111.3

 114.0

 115.9

 117.2

 118.9

 119.8

 120.8

 121.7

 123.1

 124.0

 124.7

 125.6

 126.3

 127.4

 128.5

 129.7

 130.8

 131.9

 130.4

 134.4

 136.1

 137.6

 138.6

 140.3

 141.6

 143.2

DONNELLS

RES

BEARDSLEY

RES

2013 TO DATE

NEW

MELONES

INFLOW

C.F.S

NATURAL

RIVER

C.F.S

ACCUM *

FULL

NATURAL

1000 A.F.

RESERVOIR

TOTAL

+331

+230

+224

+311

+289

+916

+570

+342

+301

+299

+256

+210

+181

+158

+157

+228

+323

+298

+246

+258

+276

+274

+260

-2,336

+2,955

+399

+301

+228

+322

+343

+344

CHANGE

A.F. C.F.S.

+167

+116

+113

+157

+146

+462

+287

+172

+152

+151

+129

+106

+91

+80

+79

+115

+163

+150

+124

+130

+139

+138

+131

-1,178

+1,490

+201

+152

+115

+162

+173

+173
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

DAY ELEV

 1,901.66

 1,901.81

 1,901.55

 1,901.63

 1,901.02

 1,900.77

 1,901.11

 1,901.39

 1,901.20

 1,900.75

 1,900.90

 1,900.84

 1,900.93

 1,901.02

 1,900.77

 1,900.95

 1,901.22

 1,901.25

 1,901.23

 1,901.29

 1,901.23

 1,900.92

 1,901.19

 1,900.86

 1,900.63

 1,900.77

 1,901.12

 1,901.23

 14,405

 14,517

 14,322

 14,382

 13,926

 13,742

 13,993

 14,203

 14,061

 13,727

 13,837

 13,793

 13,859

 13,926

 13,742

 13,874

 14,076

 14,098

 14,083

 14,128

 14,083

 13,852

 14,053

 13,808

 13,639

 13,742

 14,001

 14,083

STORAGE

+225

+112

-195

+60

-456

-184

+251

+210

-142

-334

+110

-44

+66

+67

-184

+132

+202

+22

-15

+45

-45

-231

+201

-245

-169

+103

+259

+82

CHANGE

620

557

349

475

107

234

580

550

375

306

523

417

474

477

662

649

554

340

320

408

547

452

622

545

466

397

676

569

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 236

 237

 239

 237

 237

 234

 233

 236

 236

 234

 233

 231

 233

 234

 235

 233

 234

 235

 236

 236

 235

 235

 235

 238

 232

 232

 234

 235

SPILL

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

OUTLETS

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 0

 1

 1

 2

 0

 0

 2

 1

 1

 2

 0

 0

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .00

 .02

 .03

 .04

 .03

 .03

 .06

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .05

 .05

 .05

 .10

 .02

 .04

 .05

 .07

 .00

 .02

 .08

 .05

 .03

 .08

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2021 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 1, 2021

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -97 13,251 0 2,184 6,575 22 .98

ACRE-FEET -97 26,283 0 4,332 13,042 44

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE.

(2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 0

TOTAL RIVER 17,374 26,339

 14,180

 8,965

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 193

 186

 129

 129

 21

 14

 141

 129

 133

 161

 156

 129

 129

 129

 442

 270

 139

 14

 14

 71

 255

 254

 207

 351

 241

 35

 233

 215

 4,520

 8,965
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

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 487.23

 487.22

 487.25

 487.28

 487.32

 487.35

 487.40

 487.46

 487.51

 487.57

 487.63

 487.69

 487.79

 487.81

 487.87

 488.16

 488.09

 488.20

 488.17

 488.39

 488.54

 488.50

 488.60

 488.68

 488.92

 489.13

 489.34

 489.44

 489.48

 489.60

 489.63

 180.1

 180.1

 180.1

 180.2

 180.3

 180.4

 180.5

 180.7

 180.8

 181.0

 181.1

 181.3

 181.6

 181.6

 181.8

 182.5

 182.4

 182.7

 182.6

 183.2

 183.6

 183.4

 183.7

 183.9

 184.6

 185.1

 185.7

 186.0

 186.1

 186.4

 186.5

STORAGE

-0.2

+0.0

+0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.2

+0.1

+0.2

+0.2

+0.2

+0.3

+0.1

+0.2

+0.8

-0.2

+0.3

-0.1

+0.6

+0.4

-0.1

+0.3

+0.2

+0.6

+0.6

+0.6

+0.3

+0.1

+0.3

+0.1

CHANGE

95

162

217

220

230

216

242

251

232

240

242

240

293

186

239

548

72

316

130

463

370

119

303

276

487

448

444

298

218

325

210

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

MADERA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

FRIANT-KERN

 2

 2

 4

 7

 4

 3

 3

 8

 7

 2

 4

 3

 2

 1

 1

 3

 2

 1

 2

 1

 1

 4

 1

 1

 3

 6

 0

 3

 4

 3

 9

C.F.S.

 .02

 .02

 .05

 .08

 .05

 .03

 .04

 .09

 .08

 .02

 .05

 .03

 .02

 .01

 .01

 .04

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .01

 .05

 .01

 .01

 .03

 .07

 .00

 .03

 .05

 .04

 .10

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .14

 .05

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2015 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 1, 2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +6.2 8,332 0 0 0 97 1.10 .21

ACRE-FEET +6,211 16,527 0 0 0 192

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 0

 0 10,116

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2014 TO DATE = 4.34

 180.3

 10,116 0.21

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 173

 173

 173

 173

 173

 173

 173

 163

 158

 158

 158

 158

 158

 158

 158

 158

 164

 168

 168

 168

 168

 168

 168

 168

 162

 160

 160

 160

 160

 160

 160

RIVER

 5,100

 10,116

RIVER
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Allan L. Schwartz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Allan L. Schwartz


Allan L. Schwartz


Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer


October 13, 2010
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Coach Industries Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Francis ODonnell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

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 Company.

Dated: March 16, 2006



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Francis ODonnell      
|Francis ODonnell,         
|Principal Executive Officer
### Part A—English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2689 In Re: CHARLES LURIA, Debtor.

_________________________ CHARLES LURIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRESTAR BANK, Defendant - Appellee, SCOTT D. FIELD, Chapter 11 Trustee, Intervenor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Party-in-interest.

No. 95-2780 In Re: CHARLES LURIA, Debtor.

_________________________2 CHARLES LURIA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CRESTAR BANK, Defendant - Appellant, SCOTT D. FIELD, Chapter 11 Trustee, Intervenor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Party-in-interest.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA95-240-PJM, BK-94-12553-DK) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Luria, Appellant Pro Se. B radley R. Duncan, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Ward Baldwin Coe, III, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Intervenor. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Charles Luria and Crestar Bank appeal from the districtcourt's order affirming the bankruptcy court's decision that payments Luria received from a consulting agreement were includable in the bankruptcy estate and that Crestar was barred from asserting an interest in those payments. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Luria v. Crestar Bank , Nos. CA-95-240-PJM; BK-94-12553-DK (D. Md. Aug. 16, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED