alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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





Each
      of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Sino
      Gas
      International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
       The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period
      ended March 31, 2008 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
      15, 2008





/s/
                Yuchuan LiuYuchuan
                LiuChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Yong ZhangYong
                ZhangChief
                Financial Officer





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.
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 5 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 6 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 7 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 8 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 9 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 10 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 11 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 12 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 13 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 14 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 15 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 16 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 17 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 18 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 19 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 20 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 21 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 22 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 23 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 24 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 25 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 26 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 27 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 28 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 29 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 30 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 31 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 32 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 33 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 34 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 35 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 36 of 37
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 37 of 37
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Docket No. 4:03CR60-001

)

SHARON HALL )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on a petition alleging that the defendant violated the

conditions of her supervised release as outlined in Probation Form 12C filed with the Clerk of the

U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, on January 18, 2011.

The defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the violation as outlined in the Petition;

however, the Court finds that the defendant did not make a good faith effort to pay restitution as

ordered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that given the defendant’s financial condition, the best interest

of the public would be served by terminating her supervised release. Accordingly, the Defendant is

hereby DISCHARGED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2011, nunc pro tunc March 21, 

2011.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

STEPHAN P. MICKLE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. “Hogan Lovells” is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US

LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP, with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver

Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York

Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated

offices: Budapest Jakarta Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. For more information see www.hoganlovells.com

\\DC - 039578/000001 - 3399659 v1

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.202.637.5910 Fax

Robert E. Cohn

Partner

+1.202.637.4999 Direct Line

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

April 27, 2012

Ms. Catherine O'Toole

Air Carrier Fitness Division

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of People Express Airlines, Inc. for a Certificate -

Response to DOT Information Request of April 19, 2012

(Docket DOT-OST-2012-0042)

Dear Ms. O'Toole:

People Express Airlines, Inc. (“People Express”) hereby submits responses to the

Department’s Information Request dated April 19, 2012. People Express’s response

includes confidential exhibits, which are being submitted under seal. Consequently, this

response is accompanied by a Motion for Confidential Treatment.

Please contact me if the Department requires additional information to advance the

processing of People Express’s application.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert E. Cohn

Counsel for People Express Airlines, Inc.

Enclosures

cc: Michael Morisi, President, People Express

Nicholas Scarpinato, Jr., Manager, Washington FSDO, FAA
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00348

- CV

Isabel Carolina VAZQUEZ

, Appellant

v.

SACATAR PROPERTIES

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No

. 2

, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- CV

- 0071

Honorable Kirsten Legore , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We ORDER that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to t his appeal because she qualifies as indigent.

SIGNED August 3, 2022.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice
Top of page

Skip to main content

Library of Congress

              - Discover
              - Services
              - Visit
              - Education
              - Connect
              - Shop *external link*
              - Donate
              - About
              - Ask a Librarian
              - Help
              - Contact
              - Search Online Catalog
              - Copyright.gov
              - Congress.gov

Library of Congress
Digital Collections
James Madison Papers, 1723 to 1859
ex10-1.htm


     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    

     

    5
#### § 29.6030 Package.

A hogshead, tierce, case, bale, or other securely enclosed parcel or bundle.
# C_2021070EN.01002301.xml

| 26.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/23

---

Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 2

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 11 of 11 January 2021
  )

(2021/C 70/07)

On page 11, chapters 3 6, 3 7, Title 3 — Total, Grand total:

for:

| ‘Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2020 | Amending Budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [...] | [...] | | | |
| 3 6 | OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS | p.m. | | p.m. |
| 3 7 | OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO RESERARCH AND DEVELOMENT PROJECT | 1 030 000 | | 1 030 000 |
| [...] | [...] | | | |
| | Title 3 — Total | 53 054 500 | -3 195 000 | 49 859 500 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 158 067 123 | -5 000 000 | 153 067 123 ’ |

‘Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2020

Amending Budget No 2

New amount

[...]

[...]

3 6

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS

p.m.

p.m.

3 7

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO RESERARCH AND DEVELOMENT PROJECT

1 030 000

1 030 000

[...]

[...]

Title 3 — Total

53 054 500

-3 195 000

49 859 500

GRAND TOTAL

158 067 123

-5 000 000

153 067 123 ’

read:

| ‘Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2020 | Amending Budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [...] | [...] | | | |
| 3 6 | OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS | p.m. | 3 380 000 | 3 380 000 |
| 3 7 | OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO RESERARCH AND DEVELOMENT PROJECT | 1 030 000 | 2 171 950 | 3 201 950 |
| [...] | [...] | | | |
| | Title 3 — Total | 53 054 500 | 2 356 950 | 55 411 450 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 158 067 123 | 551 950 | 158 619 073 ’ |

‘Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2020

Amending Budget No 2

New amount

[...]

[...]

3 6

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS

p.m.

3 380 000

3 380 000

3 7

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO RESERARCH AND DEVELOMENT PROJECT

1 030 000

2 171 950

3 201 950

[...]

[...]

Title 3 — Total

53 054 500

2 356 950

55 411 450

GRAND TOTAL

158 067 123

551 950

158 619 073 ’

---
3 - 1

CHAPTER 3

RADIO NAVIGATIONAL WARNINGS

300A. General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300B. Coastal and Local Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300C. Long Range Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300D. Worldwide Warnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300E. Worldwide Warnings Message Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300F. Warning Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300G. SPECIAL WARNINGS and Broadcast Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300H. NAVTEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300I. U.S. NAVTEX Transmitting Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300J. Worldwide NAVTEX Transmitting Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300K. Ice Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300L. Navigational Warning Station List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

300M. WorldWide Navigational Warning Service NAVAREA Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-34-TKW

RICHARD L. SAUNDERS, IV

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, Richard Saunders, IV, to Count One of the indictment is hereby 

ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00034-TKW Document 37 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Patricia M. Robinson, Respondent. North American Recycling Corp., Appellant; Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 8, 1979, which approved an award of unemployment benefits to claimant upon the grounds that her previous disqualification for refusal of suitable employment had been terminated and that she could not suffer additional disqualification for further refusal of the same employment. Claimant was working for the employer herein as a bookkeeper when, in the spring of 1978, she terminated her employment. By initial determination, the Industrial Commissioner thereafter disqualified her from benefits effective May 2,1978 because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause and effective May 12, 1978 because she refused suitable employment, i.e., employment with the appellant employer, without good cause. The matter then came before an Administrative Law Judge, who, on June 14, 1978, sustained the finding of voluntary leaving of employment effective May 2, 1978 and made no ruling upon the finding of refusal of suitable employment effective May 12, 1978. Subsequently, claimant worked for an intermediate employer and earned in excess of $200, thereby purging her earlier disqualification from receiving benefits, and she was then laid off and filed a new claim for benefits. Ultimately, the board determined that she was entitled to an award even though she had admittedly rejected a September 22, 1978 offer of employment by the appellant employer herein, who would be surcharged on the instant claim, following her being laid off by the intermediate employer. This appeal followed. We hold that the board’s decision should be reversed. When a claimant refuses suitable employment without good cause, she should clearly be denied unemployment benefits *(Matter of Batih [Levine],*51 AD2d 604), and upon the present record it is obvious that the board would have denied the instant claim but for its conclusion that claimant had previously been disqualified from benefits effective May 12,1978 for refusal of employment and should not be disqualified again for refusal of the same employment. This conclusion of the board is plainly erroneous, however, because claimant was denied benefits upon her original claim in the spring of 1978 pursuant to an Administrative Law Judge’s decision, which superseded the determination of the Industrial Commissioner and disqualified claimant from benefits solely upon the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Under these circumstances, claimant should now be denied an award because of her refusal of suitable employment, and such a result will clearly not constitute a second disqualification from benefits because of a refusal of a job offer from the appellant employer. Decision reversed, without costs, and claim dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999             JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           7,728                   7,728
<SECURITIES>                                     3,824                   3,824
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,211                   9,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (801)                   (801)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,429                   4,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,970                  24,970
<PP&E>                                          16,363                  16,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (11,216)                (11,216)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,913                  31,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,535                  18,535
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            88                      88
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,201                  13,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,913                  31,913
<SALES>                                         11,098                  28,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,012                  40,038
<CGS>                                            2,681                   7,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,378                   9,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,336                  29,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,049                   1,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265                     320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                784                   1,094
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       784                   1,094
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.09                   $0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.08                   $0.12


</TABLE>
February 24 , 2015

Mr. Charles H. Leonard

Chief Executive Officer Network Media Services, LLC. 2646 Weatherby Hills Drive SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546

Dear Mr. Leonard :

This is in response to your August 3 , 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA

- 20 14

- 0598 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Network Media Services

, LLC DBA Applied Drone Technologies for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91 .151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Applied Drone Technologies to commercially operate its fleet of small unman ned aircraft in motion picture or television operations, to conduct its own research and to develop economic platforms for law enforcement, first responders, and search and rescue.

By email dated December 5, 2014, which posted to the docket on December 9, the FAA sent you a request for additional information asking you to:

1. Please provide all UAS makes and models, serial numbers, technical specifications, i.e., maximum takeoff weight, payload weight, size, and max speed, operating limitations, if any

to be used under this exemption, referenced on page eight.

2. Please provide additional information concerning Network Media’s maintenance program, i.e., inspections and correction of discrepancies, referenced on page eight of the exemption

request.

3. If complete, please provide the operations manual referenced on page eight of the petitioner’s exemption request.2

To date, the FAA has not received the required information to continue processing your petition. Because your petition lacks sufficient informa tion to proceed, the FAA has closed

your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please

resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking
98- 1599.

#### In re Lavin.

On August 5, 1998, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed with the Supreme Court a certified copy of a judgment entry of a felony conviction against respondent, William Joseph Lavin. Attached to the certified copy of the judgment entry were two letters dated July 21, 1998, and July 31, 1998, from the Clients’ Security Fund that are confidential pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(E). Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the two letters be, and hereby are, sealed.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31205

Summary Calendar

 

ALFRED JOSEPH ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH S. WOODLEY; SANDRA P. PAYNE;

GORDON E. ROUNTREE; BOSSIER RADIOLOGY

CENTER; RICHARD D. HANDLEY, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-113

- - - - - - - - - -

May 29, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Alfred Joseph Alexander appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to state a claim

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6). Alexander’s challenge to the

district court’s imposition of sanction and its refusal to grant

a hearing on his request for injunctive relief is not properly

before the court as Alexander previously appealed these issues. 
Alexander’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s order setting

aside the entry of a default judgment was not appealed to the

district court and therefore cannot be reviewed by this court. 

Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Alexander contends that the district court erred in dismissing

his action against appellees. We have reviewed the record and

Alexander’s briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for

essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. 

Alexander v. Woodley, 95-CV-113 (W.D. La. Nov. 15, 1995).

AFFIRMED.