alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-09-00395-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL C 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 

NORMAN CECIL DONOVAN, APPELLANT 

v. 

DANIEL R. BECK, ET AL, APPELLEES 

 FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2009-548,685; HONORABLE LESLIE HATCH, JUDGE 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant, Norman Cecil Donovan, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a notice of 

appeal challenging the trial court’s December 3, 2009 order of dismissal of his claims as 

frivolous, pursuant to chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We 

dismiss. 

On January 13, 2010, Donovan filed a document with this Court entitled 

“Plaintiff’s Appellant Deprivation of Due Process Laws Day in Court on Discriminatory 

Laws,” in which Donovan made no citations to the record and cited no legal authority. 

Because of the document’s numerous deficiencies, it was not construed by this Court to 
2 

be Donovan’s appellate brief. As such, by letter dated May 13, 2010, this Court notified 

Donovan that his appellate brief was past due and directed him to file his brief on or 

before May 24, 2010. On May 24, 2010, Donovan filed a duplicate of the January 13, 

2010 document. Upon realizing that Donovan intended this document to be his 

appellate brief, by letter dated May 27, 2010, this Court notified Donovan that his brief 

was deficient1 and directed him to correct the deficiencies and re-file his brief on or 

before June 25, 2010. When Donovan failed to comply with the June 25 deadline, this 

Court notified Donovan of his failure and informed him that his corrected brief must be 

filed by August 9, 2010, or his appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See

id. at 42.3(b). Despite two notices and a reasonable time in which to comply with this 

Court’s directive, Donovan has failed to file a corrected brief or in any way respond. 

 1

 The Court’s May 27, 2010 letter identified the deficiencies in Donovan’s brief as 

follows: 

The brief is deficient in that it wholly fails to include the following: 

a. Identity of parties and counsel; 

b. Table of contents; 

c. Index of authorities; 

d. Statement of the case; 

e. Issues presented; 

f. Statement of facts; and 

g. Prayer. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (j). Further, the brief does 

not include any references to the record nor does it include any citations to 

authority. See id. at 38.1(d), (g), (i). Finally, the argument is 

indecipherable and appellant does not clearly state the nature of the relief 

sought. See id. at 38.1(i), (j). 
3 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to 

comply with a deadline set by the Clerk of this Court. See id. at 42.3(b)(c).

 Mackey K. Hancock 

 Justice
Federal Holidays and Paid Leave

The Federal Judiciary provides employees with 11 paid holidays:

 New Year's Day

 Martin Luther King's Birthday

 Washington's Birthday

 Memorial Day

 Juneteenth Independence Day

 Independence Day

 Labor Day

 Columbus / Indigenous Peoples’ Day

 Veterans Day

 Thanksgiving Day

 Christmas Day

Annual Leave

Eligible federal employees accrue paid annual leave and may use it for vacations, rest and relaxation, 

and personal business or emergencies. Employees may carryover up to 240 hours of accrued annual 

leave each year. Employees will receive a lump-sum payment for any unused annual leave when he or 

she separates from Federal service or enters on active duty in the Armed Forces and elects to receive 

a lump-sum payment. Each employee’s annual leave accrual rate is based on years of creditable 

service as shown below:

Employee 

Type

Less than 3 years of 

service

3 years but less than 15 years of 

service

15 or more years of 

service

Full-time 1⁄2 day (4 hours) for 

each pay period

3⁄4 day (6 hours) for each pay period, 

except 11⁄4 day (10 hours) in last pay

period

1 day (8 hours) for 

each pay period

Part-time 1 hour for each 20 

hours in a pay status 1 hour for each 13 hours in a pay status 1 hour for each 10 hours in a pay status

Sick Leave

Federal employees also accrue paid sick leave which may be used for personal medical needs, family 

care or bereavement, care of a family member with a serious condition, and adoption related purposes. 

Accrued sick leave carries over each year and there is not carry over limit. All employees accrue sick 

leave at the same rate as shown below:

Employee Type Accrual

Full-time 4 hours accrues each full biweekly pay period

Part-time 1 hour accrues for each 20 hours worked.

More information can be found at the below links:

• OPM Leave Page

• JNET Leave Guidance
§ 11.54 EAS operation during a National Level emergency. ( a ) Immediately upon receipt of an EAN message, or the NPT Event code in the case of a nationwide test of the EAS, EAS Participants must comply with the following requirements, as applicable: ( 1 ) Analog and digital broadcast stations may transmit their call letters and analog cable systems, digital cable systems and wireless cable systems may transmit the names of the communities they serve during an EAS activation. State and Local Area identifications must be given as provided in State and Local Area EAS Plans.
( 2 ) Analog and digital broadcast stations are exempt from complying with §§ 73.62 and 73.1560 of this chapter (operating power maintenance) while operating under this part.
( 3 ) The time of receipt of the EAN shall be entered by analog and digital broadcast stations in their logs (as specified in §§ 73.1820 and 73.1840 of this chapter), by analog and digital cable systems in their records (as specified in § 76.1711 of this chapter), by subject wireless cable systems in their records (as specified in § 21.304 of this chapter), and by all other EAS Participants in their records as specified in § 11.35(a).
( b ) EAS Participants originating emergency communications under this section shall be considered to have conferred rebroadcast authority, as required by section 325(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 325(a), to other EAS Participants.
( c ) During a national level EAS emergency, EAS Participants may transmit in lieu of the EAS audio feed an audio feed of the President's voice message from an alternative source, such as a broadcast network audio feed.
[77 FR 16705, Mar. 22, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 37177, June 30, 2015]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1847: IN RE: NOBLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"msz1QGsYsE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-18-1847-in-re-noble-systems-corporation-rule-36-judgment-18-1847-rule_36_judgment-3-7-2019-1\/\">18-1847: IN RE: NOBLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-18-1847-in-re-noble-systems-corporation-rule-36-judgment-18-1847-rule_36_judgment-3-7-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=msz1QGsYsE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1847: IN RE: NOBLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"msz1QGsYsE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: IN RE: NOBLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1847 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****A compilation of reports of theAdvisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.N 88:10/1125/ | Y 3.N 88:10-9/

Item Number:1051-H-48 (online) | 1051-H-49(online)
CGP systemNumber:000777843
 
1993| 1996 | 1999
2000| 2001 | 2002 | 2003| 2004 | 2005 | 2006
 
April 29, 2020
* 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. 95-60651

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARCHIE GRIFFIN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CR-97

- - - - - - - - - -

August 5, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Archie Griffin appeals his conviction for conspiracy to

illegally transport and receive firearms in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 371. He contends that the district court erred in

refusing to suppress oral statements he made after his arrest,

there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, the

district court erred in admitting "other acts" evidence, the

court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a
No. 95-60651

-2-

continuance, and the district court erred in increasing his

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) of the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines.

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities

convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The

district court did not err in denying Griffin's motion to

suppress his oral statements. See United States v. Hopkins, 433

F.2d 1041, 1045 (5th Cir. 1970). The evidence was sufficient for

a reasonable jury to find Griffin guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. See United States v. Singer, 970 F.2d 1414, 1419 (5th

Cir. 1992). The admission of "other acts" evidence was not

unfairly prejudicial to Griffin. See United States v. Pace, 10

F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2180

(1994). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying his

motion for a continuance because Griffin failed to show that he

suffered serious prejudice as a result of the denial. See United

States v. Scott, 48 F.3d 1389, 1393 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116

S. Ct. 264 (1995). The court did not clearly err in assessing

the four-level increase in Griffin's offense level for his

leadership role. See United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929,

944 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 180 (1994).

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
No. 11-9140.

#### Thomas *v.*Illinois.

.App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
# ACTIVE PERMITTED CLASS IID WELLS IN NEW YORK

WELL NAME WELL CLASS LATITUDE LONGITUDE MAX INJECTION PRESSURE (PSIG) MAXIMUM PERMITTED INJECTION RATE INJECTION ZONE 2009 INJECTED VOLUME

GALLONS INJECTION DEPTH (Feet Below Surface) COUNTY

National Fuel SC

- 5 46 IID 42.071968

- 77.742266 10 3500 bbl/day Oriskany Sandstone 6,336,900 4678

- 4708 Allegany

Columbia Gas H

- 229 IID 42.165

- 77.665556 2000 1500 bbl/day Max 600 bbl/day monthly
avg. Oriskany Sandstone 476,300* 4354

- 4375 Steuben

Lenape Ranous #1 IID 42.9583

- 77.8333 29 2000 bbl/day instantaneous 400 bbl/day over 24 hours Salina Formation 100,040 640

- 700 Livingston

Inergy Midstream Well #8 IID 42.308889

- 77.255833 1538 13,714 bbl/day for 24 hours 10,300 bbl/day monthly
avg. Queenston Formation 814,931 5197

- 6 000 Steuben

U.S. Gypsum Diver 1A IID 43.024722

- 78.313333 500 285 bbl/day for 24 hours 50 bbl/day monthly
avg. Medina Sandstone 0 1003

- 1054 Genesee

Chesapeake Energy Quill 762

- 1 IID 42.928973

- 76.713612 398 250 bbl/day Queenston Formation 289 1479

- 1642 C ayuga



### * Columbia H

- 229 injected volume is through September 2009.
46492.

#### GARLAND v. CARNES et al.

(379 SE2d 782)

Decided June 1, 1989.

*Cornwell, Church & Healy, James E. Cornwell, Jr.,*for appellant.

*J. Michael Brown,*for appellees.

Hunt, Justice.

Garland brought this action against the Carnes to enforce a subdivision’s restrictive covenant providing:

> *No mobile home or trailers and buildings with metal roofs or metal siding*or no complete concrete block buildings shall be placed on the property. [Emphasis supplied.]

The trial court found the covenant ambiguous in that the prepositional phrase “with metal roofs or metal siding,” could be read to describe either (1) only “trailers and buildings” or (2) “mobile home” as well as “trailers and buildings.” Accordingly, the trial court permitted parol evidence and found the intent of the drafter/developer was to prohibit only mobile homes with metal roofs or metal siding. Thus, the trial court held the covenant did not exclude manufactured homes such as that installed by the Carnes, which have a shingle roof and hard board siding.

We find no ambiguity in the covenant. While it is possible to read “with metal roofs or metal sidings” as defining “mobile home,” thus excluding the Carnes’ home, it does not follow that the contract is necessarily ambiguous. See *Holcomb v. Word,*239 Ga. 847, 848 (238 SE2d 915) (1977). It is the duty of the trial court to construe a covenant to carry into effect the intention of the parties, which is to be discerned from the whole instrument. See *White v. Legodais,*249 Ga. 849, 850 (295 SE2d 99) (1982). Here, a reading of the covenant as a whole shows an intent to exclude mobile homes, as used in the everyday sense of that term. See OCGA § 13-2-2 (2); *White v. Legodais,*supra. Since the covenant is not ambiguous, the trial court erred by considering parol evidence to determine the drafter’s intent. The clause unqualifiedly prohibits mobile homes, *as well as*buildings with metal roofs or siding, and the double-wide involved here is, in common usage, a mobile home. Id. It follows, therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to grant the injunction.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Smith and Bell, JJ., who dissent.*
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-2056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v . JASON GERHARD, Defendant, Appellant, No. 08-2300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v . CIRINO GONZALEZ, Defendant, Appellant, No. 08-2450 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v . DANIEL RILEY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 30, 2010, isamended as follows:

On page 9, line 20, "riles" is changed to "rifles". On page 11, line 7, "2009" is changed to "2007".
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1107 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JORDAN 

Amending the Agreement of 

November 10, 1996 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Amman August 21 and 

November 7, 2006 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 JORDAN 

 Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

 Agreement amending the agreement 

 of November 10, 1996. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at Amman 

 August 21 and November 7, 2006; 

 Entered into force November 7, 2006.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Live Chat Feature Now Available on Federal Circuit Website - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SCnq6s7ZQC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/live-chat-feature-now-available-on-federal-circuit-website\/\"><strong>Live Chat Feature Now Available on Federal Circuit Website<\/strong><\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/live-chat-feature-now-available-on-federal-circuit-website\/embed\/#?secret=SCnq6s7ZQC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“<strong>Live Chat Feature Now Available on Federal Circuit Website<\/strong>” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"SCnq6s7ZQC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Clerk\u2019s Office is pleased to announce the launch of a live chat feature on the court\u2019s website.  This new feature supplements current communication methods and allows public users to receive real time assistance from a Clerk\u2019s Office staff member without having to call the Clerk\u2019s Office.  The live chat is completely browser-based and does [...]"}
#### § 302-3.302 May my agency pay for my immediate family member(s) and my household goods to be returned to the U.S. before I complete my service agreement?

Yes, your agency may pay for your immediate family member(s) and your household goods to be returned to the U.S. before you complete your service agreement. However, your reason for not completing your service agreement must be determined by your agency as compassionate in nature or for circumstances beyond your control.
#### Gary A. BENNETT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Daniel SZOSTKIEWICZ, etc., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 03-1525.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

March 24, 2004.

Tani E. Sapirstein, with whom Sapir-stein *&*Sapirstein was on brief, for appellant.

John H. Fitz-Gibbon, with whom Harry L. Miles, Green, Miles, Lipton, White & Fitz-Gibbon, John C. Sikorski, and Robinson Donovan, P.C. were on brief, for appel-lees.

Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SMITH,* District Judge.

*

 Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal follows the entry of a judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Daniel Szostkiewicz (mayor of the City of Ho-lyoke), Marc Cournoyer (Holyoke’s police chief), and Stephen Donoghue (Holyoke’s former police chief). The circumstances of the case are limned in our opinion in *Bennett v. City of Holyoke,*362 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2004) [No. 03-1520], dated March 22, 2004, and need not be repeated here.

In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant Gary A. Bennett challenges two mid-trial evi-dentiary rulings of the district court: (i) the exclusion of so-called comparator evidence anent Ralph DiNapoli and Joseph Garcia, and (ii) the admission of evidence regarding the criminality of Bennett’s conduct in surreptitiously recording a conversation.1

It is black-letter law that a district court possesses broad discretion in connection with the admission or exclusion of evidence, and that its determinations in that wise are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. *Udemba v. Nicoli,*237 F.3d 8, 14 *7(1st Cir.2001); *Iacobucci v. Boulter,*193 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir.1999). We have carefully reviewed the rulings at issue here and we are satisfied that the trial court, in both instances, acted well within the en-cincture of its discretion. Given the fact-specific nature of both the case and the disputed rulings, further discussion would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgments entered below in favor of Szost-kiewicz, Cournoyer, and Donoghue will be

*Affirmed.*

1

. Bennett elaborates on this assignment of error by attacking (i) the trial court’s willingness to take judicial notice of the applicable criminal statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and (ii) the jury instructions related to this evidence. We have considered and rejected both theories.