alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State Of Delaware v. Charles Harris, Jr.

*(July*28, 1950.)

Wolcott, J., sitting.

*Joseph H. Flanser,*Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.

*378
      *E. N. Carpenter, II,*for the defendant.

Court of General Sessions for New Castle County,

Bastardy, No. 27,

May Term, 1950.

*379Wolcott, J.:

The transcript of the record below discloses that the defendant was tried and convicted in the Family Court of this county on a charge of non-support of an illegitimate child. The appeal to this court was taken from the order adjudging him guilty of non-support 6f the illegitimate child. The information filed against him in this court as a result of his appeal, however, charges him with the offense of bastardy.

In *Monastakes*v. *State,*2 *W. W. Harr.*549, 127 *A.*153, the Supreme Court of Delaware held that criminal appeals to the Court of General Sessions from inferior courts, while tried de nova in the Court of General Sessions, nevertheless, must be for the same offense that was tried in the inferior court.

The information filed in the Court of General Sessions is based on a transcript of a record sent up by the court below and must necessarily be for the same offense which the transcript discloses was the offense for which the defendant was tried.

In the case at bar, the defendant was tried below for the non-support of an illegitimate child under Section 3527, R. C. 1935, as amended. The information on file in the Court of General Sessions is for the offense of bastardy and does not charge non-support. The offense charged is brought under an entirely different chapter of the Revised Code and is not the same offense for which the 'defendant was tried below. The information is therefore quashed.

This ruling makes it unnecessary to consider the first reason assigned in the motion to quash.
§ 39.7 What other authorities concerning nondiscrimination on the basis of disability apply to owners and operators of passenger vessels? ( a ) If you receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, compliance with applicable requirements of this part is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance.
( b ) You are also subject to ADA regulations of the Department of Justice (28 CFR part 35 or 36, as applicable).
OFtiCE **OF THE**  **AlTORN,EY GENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN ;;**  **GROVER**

**moA.ERS .** **. -**  **~.I Al7o**  **”Nr.Y**

**QCNUAL**



## Eonorrblr

E. A. **Wtroa** 

## countyAttorarf Crosbr**Couatr** 

### Croabyton, **Tsxw**



## “(a: The Sherlrr bee 

## no Drputg,but rat48 **OIIP ba&;lf.** 

### “(4 May the **Codsr~onu~r** 

### Court pa i **the** 

## 6h0rifr r0tw 

## brgsnie8 or 

## hi8dri00, irro ~difi8. t renl b g

rxpea ror

orn a y

**other** 

### l

r pmi or

out of
w mad8 0100



### . orrirlo or n3 tie **t** ~8 

### rOO8 0r OrfLoO ~6 ihr,ix .w l yí rlw ;

y h1.n

18í DOW p riaëUrn? **"(b) Can**  **tbe QoddOIIu**  **’ 8**  **p@~ tb** * **Sbu$ff '** 



## Artlole&9, ita+i*ad Statutu 

## oi Texas? ***(rl can**  **the Cotm8188iiarr~r**  **Court p8y**  **rrl-** ~ib8 or **3cputit8 81~3**  **Ofriob 0iOm**  

## but 0r **thb** 

## willWltuQ4C) '(8) **Cm** 

## the **COD&~~~~ORU*Q** **Cwit** 

## pajr the **3berltr** 

## for &oprbolatlon an4 awrsrr~ orperumr or **o)rrrtion** 

### Or shrrfft~l) **8ato*oblle** **8nd the**  **eo8t** 

### or mintuiulr0 0r 8814 l 

## utanobllb eat or thr'@w- .0ti irrod

8ttaii **not,** l **OR tw**  **pf tb688**  **-iblM** 

## wit 0f w rpad, **and** 

## w 80, rba ru? 

## i !

2..

.,-

~. .( ,:;..**~OBOMkO &**  **A. ~St808,**  **?8#. )** 
hl4, if OW i8 ep@OiIDt@d, Wzll 

### bo +6 00 pro~idrd 

### in **Arti818** 

## rla JO029

i *****

. %%a WJiOWt Or 8td~i~S pSid t0 lil**SfStSdt;** itid &pUtk Sbdl du, be o?r8rly shcr*n 

### by ~8UOb oitiooi, 

### glrin(t

### the oara, pdtion, and amout 

### paid ***Sob; md**  **in a0**  **stoat** 

### rh8ll any oti~lOU Show Sll7 **CT68trr** 

### l **UNat thlh**  **8OtUAllY &t&l**  84 SWh SWi6tWt Or 68wtYo 

## ThO UWUO~ Or 

## SWh St **l¶SeS, tOgW%r**  **With** 

### the biRXA&t 

### Of Sr1@r168 **ga**

### 3" **d** 

### t0 **68ohtWit8, dOplti66**  

### -4 

## l lUkS, S&d1 **ba pRl4out**  **or the**  **rOO8 .omM~6**  **br** 

### SuQh orrlow.



### . . .' 

### &t181e 6869, 

### ~8Pnod'S

## l bO~ite8 **fhb NiyWit**  **Oi bOpt&tY**  

### tuna **0r** 

### the oouaty 

### only whh the tbr OpiBiOn tbrt tb@ fO.8 Of tb t0 

### t U8trfr the wWt,t Of the bpUtXO8. Tb. ~)loSO Of th0 **St8 ut** * **ir t0**  

### omblo 8iN 8hOriff to b6Ve 8 SuiY~816at number **Of bO~fith8**  **t0** **r*rfOam** **tb dU%irS**  **Oi hi8**  **OffilO-8. bUlOtSi8d**  **civil %ltUteS;**  ShSrLitS **098** Of 

### th. ~Ueral 

### 00&18102~8* 00UPt 18 Or
. Sh?rirr ?g' not 

### m~rfOi+% ~.

fa 

### rnmwer

to year 

## ihlrd 03i81r &? **U.StiGi** mu **uc** idriS.d- '-~ **8athorla*8** 

### ul* **paywnt Or**  

## t&O **UwOd** 

## fd Or %hO **WWtf** 

## Oar OOU?t 

### 18 Of tbr 0 ioiba th8t CbO rOb8 Or Lh@ 0h~fti W t&OS SUmOi&f&t %O &&St 

### P the tipat188., rY the 

### p+Nnt Or.

‘:

~.. 

## our dplaleo. so. o-067 w.euera pur rirth md rwrmth qurrtiona and we uroloao l 

## oopf of thl8 

### opial~fi for Jour ooavuahaor.

**Arrm#rlr** 

## tnrl. BY 

## Ad.11 7mllarr 3818tant

APPROVSD Oplaion 

# OoEalttw :LE6. :
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6648
FRANKLIN D. FRAZIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Parker Evatt, Commissioner; C.J. CEPAK, Warden at Broad River Correctional Institute; DR. HOLMES, (Orthopedic) at Byrnes Clinic in Columbia, South Carolina; LIEUTENANT MAZCK, Broad River R & E Center; LIEUTENANT KNOWLIN, Broad River Correctional Institute in official and individual capacity; CLIFFORD GLOVER; DR. ELLIOT; LINDA DUNLAP; SUSAN BRETZ; MRS. WILLIAMS; DR. BOULWARE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-218-3-6BC) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin D. Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY, HENRY & FOSTER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Frazier v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections , No. CA-95-218-3-6BC (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 1996). 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
Editorial Note on Part 365
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 365 appear at 66 FR 49870, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 365.411T Responsive pleadings. ( a ) Protests must be filed within 20 days after the date of publication of an approved transfer application in the *FMCSA Register.* Protests received prior to the notice will be rejected. Applicants may respond within 20 days after the due date of protests. Petitions for reconsideration of decisions denying applications must be filed within 20 days after the date of service of such decisions.
( b ) Protests and petitions for reconsideration must be filed with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Registration and Safety Information (MC-RS), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, and be served on appropriate parties.
[82 FR 5300, Jan. 17, 2017]
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 862 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 862

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to add Diabetes Mellitus (Type 
    2) to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected for 
             veterans exposed to certain herbicide agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2001

 Mr. Evans (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Brown of Florida, 
   Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Shows, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Condit, Mr. Cramer, Mr. 
Edwards, Mr. Frank, Mr. Frost, Mr. Kleczka, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Mascara, 
 Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Baldwin, and 
  Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to add Diabetes Mellitus (Type 
    2) to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected for 
             veterans exposed to certain herbicide agents.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION THAT DIABETES MELLITUS (TYPE 2) IS SERVICE-
              CONNECTED.

    Section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(H) Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 93 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                                H. R. 93

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the mandatory 
  separation age for Federal firefighters be made the same as the age 
     that applies with respect to Federal law enforcement officers.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 93

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the mandatory 
  separation age for Federal firefighters be made the same as the age 
     that applies with respect to Federal law enforcement officers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Firefighters Retirement Age 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY SEPARATION AGE FOR FIREFIGHTERS.

    (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
            (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 8335(b) of 
        title 5, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``law 
                enforcement officer''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``that 
                officer''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8335(b) of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence.
    (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
            (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 8425(b) of 
        title 5, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``law 
                enforcement officer'' each place it appears; and
                    (B) by striking ``courier'' the second place it 
                appears and inserting ``courier, as the case may be,''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8425(b) of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 30, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 220.7 Penalty.

Any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent contractor providing goods or services to a railroad; and any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $1,086 and not more than $35,516 per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations; where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed $142,063 per violation may be assessed; and the standard of liability for a railroad will vary depending upon the requirement involved. Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See FRA's website at *www.fra.dot.gov* for a statement of agency civil penalty policy.

[63 FR 47195, Sept. 4, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 30593, May 28, 2004; 72 FR 51196, Sept. 6, 2007; 73 FR 79702, Dec. 30, 2008; 77 FR 24420, Apr. 24, 2012; 81 FR 43110, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 16133, Apr. 3, 2017; 83 FR 60747, Nov. 27, 2018; 84 FR 23734, May 23, 2019; 84 FR 37073, July 31, 2019; 86 FR 1758, Jan. 11, 2021; 86 FR 23254, May 3, 2021; 87 FR 15868, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 1127, Jan. 6, 2023; 88 FR 89562, Dec. 28, 2023]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2257-2258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00420]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matters To Be Considered

Decisional Matters

    1. Section 1110 Certificated of Compliance--Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking;
    2. Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Plan
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product

[[Page 2258]]

Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 
504-7923.

    Dated: January 8, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00420 Filed 1-8-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### § 39.13 When must PVOs comply with the provisions of this part?

You are required to comply with the requirements of this part beginning November 3, 2010, except as otherwise provided in individual sections of this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial information extracted from the
unaudited  financial  statements contained in the form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       12,775
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                23,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 760,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            786,862
<PP&E>                                       20,776
<DEPRECIATION>                              (12,019)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,026,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,299,437
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                     22,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   73,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,026,584
<SALES>                                     231,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            326,496
<CGS>                                       224,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               235,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            133,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           39,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (81,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (81,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (81,415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        



</TABLE>
**To :**  **Cc: Bcc:**  **Subject: Question regarding: Peer Review Process for New Directions in Atmospheric** 

**Environment Journal**

**Regarding the Carbon Monoxide ISA: A public commenter asked why a particular article had not been included in the CO ISA . It was unclear**  **whether or not the study had been peer-reviewed. The New Directions**  **journal manager was not able to definitively confirm that the article had been peer-reviewed.** 

**From: Bethan Keall <newdirections@live.co.uk>**  **To: Tom Luben/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA**  **Date: 05/18/2011 08:21 AM**  **Subject: RE: Question about New Directions in Atmospheric Environment** 

Dear Dr Luben
Thank you for your email

. In answer to your query, most New Direction submissions undergo the peer-review process.
Unfortunately I am unable to comment on the paper by Pedersen et al., as we no longer have any records for this submission, seeing as it dates back to 2004.

Kind regards

Sue Hurren Journal Manager

To : newdirections@live.co.uk Subject: Question about New Directions in Atmospheric Environment From: Luben. Tom @epamail.epa.gov Date: Tue , 10 May 2011 14:36:39 -0400

**Do submissions for New Directions undergo a peer-review process?**

**Specifically, I am interested in the paper: Pedersen CB, Raaschou-Nielson O, Hertel O, Mortensen PB. 2004. New Directions: Air pollution from traffic and schizophrenia risk . Atmospheric Environment 38:**  **3733-3734.**

**Thank you,**

**Tom Luben, Ph.D., MSPH Senior Epidemiologist**  **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment**  **Telephone: 919-541-5762 E-mail: luben.tom@epa.gov**
[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.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Fiscal year... program [electronic resource]**** 
SuDoc:D 101.1/7:
ItemNumber:0330-E-03(online)
CGPsystem Number:000581679
 
2003
2004
2005
2006
 
 **
#### § 236.533 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.2

CHIRON CORPORATION  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report ofCHIRON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation(the "Company"), on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,DAVID V. SMITH, Acting Chief
Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the
best of my knowledge:



This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

|                      |  |     |                                                                                           
|--------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2003 |  | By: | /s/DAVID V. SMITHDAVID V. SMITH
Vice President, Finance and Acting Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1109.html[7/22/2015 11:12:44 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-zu7t

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1109

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kimberly Fox

Address:

3562 Beneva Lane

Sarasota, FL, 34231

Email: KAFox40@aol.com

Phone: 9419252397

General Comment

Leave my retirement alone! We need a petition to stop life long payments to the members of Congress and the

 President and his family. We are not even able to support our families anymore I am damn sure not willing to

 support them anymore. All they are doing is stealing from the working class. Enough is Enough!
#### Clay Whiteley, *Respondent, v.*Jane A. Zea, Appellant.—

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Potter, J.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40725 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EDWIN IDONIS MARTINEZ

- LOPEZ, also known as Edwin Idonis Manueles

Valledares , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 12

- 1

Before DeMOSS, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edwin Idonis Martinez

- Lopez appeals his guilty plea conviction for being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal that counsel was ineffective at sentencing. Although Martinez

- Lopez’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver provision, we are unable to determine whether he knowingly and voluntarily

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 3, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40725 Document: 00512686702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2014No. 13

- 40725
waived his appellate rights because the record on appeal does not contain the rearraignment transcript. We pretermit cons ideration of the effect of the appeal waiver in this case because we would not reach the merits of the ineffective assistance claim in any event as the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to evaluate counsel’s actions. See United States v. St ory , 439 F.3d 226, 230

- 31 (5th Cir. 2006) ; see also United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)

. Martinez

- Lopez also argues that there is a clerical error in the judgment because it references both 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P

. 36. There is no error as Martinez

- Lopez was indicted for and in fact pleaded guilty to violating § 1326(a) and (b)(1)

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-40725 Document: 00512686702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2014